JK 6167 
1911 
Copy 1 



Cfje Minnesota 
legislature of 1911 



LYNN HAINES 




m 

9 

a 
o 
u 

bt 

« 
JS 
«o 
O 

h 

• 

a 

o 



lb 



c 
o 

u 
« 

■*■> 

a 

<s 

jc 

U 

4) 
«) 

«o 

fi 
O 




Vote for One ( 



VoU for Oao 



V. 



I 00 



Vole fi»r 



Vole for One I Vote for ftai 



a 

8 

O 



(6 



> 

a 
o 

o 

C 



a 



J* 

o 

-a 

T3 

C 

O 

u 



THE MINNESOTA 
LEGISLATURE a 1911 



THE WRITING OF WHICH WAS 
MADE DIFFICULT BY THE MASKS 
WHICH MEN WORE, IN HALF 
THE CRUCIAL EVENTS OF THE 
SESSION "THE VOICE WAS 
JACOB'S VOICE, BUT THE HANDS 
WERE THF HANDS OF ESAU." 



Copyright 1911 

LYNN HAINES 

919 New York Life Bldg., Minneapolis, Mtnn. 









\> 



To the Progressives of Minnesota. 



CU292056 



THE DISTRICTS AND WHO REPRESENT THEM 



1st District, Houston County — 
Senator F. A. Duxbury 
Representative F. L. Farley 

2rA District, Winona County — 
Senator M. J. McGrath 
Representatives Charles P. Schuler, 
Albert Libera, and Clinton Robinson 

3rd District, Wabasha — 
Senator L. 0. Cooke 
Representative Carl S. Nygren 

4th District, Olmstead — 
Senator A. T. Stebbins 
Representatives Henry A. Hoffman and 
Kerry E. Conley 

5th District, Fillmore— 
Senator S. A. Nelson 
Representatives Thomas Frankson 
and John 0. Rustad 



fc> 



•th District, Mower — 

Senator C. F. Cook - 

Representatives F. C. J. Christie 

and Ralph E. Crane 
7th District, Dodge — 

Senator F. J. Thoe 

Representative Finlay McMartin 

Sth District, Steele— 

Senator Thomas E. Cashman 

Representative Leonard "Virtue 
9tb District, Freeborn — 

Senator B. N. Anderson 

Representatives H. H. Dunn 

and Alva Henion 

10th District, Waseca — 
Senator John Moonan 
Representative John W. Papke 

11th District, Blue Earth — 
Senator S. D. Works 
Representatives Charles F. Herzberg, 
William A. Just and Frank L. Kelly. 

12th District, Faribault— 

Senator Frank E. Putnam 
Representative W. A. Harding 

13th Dist., Martin and Watonwan — 
Senator Julius E. Haycraft 
Representatives Jos. Davies 
and H. A. Saggau 

14th District, Jackson and Cottonwood 
Senator Andrew C. Olson 
Representatives Henry Dntiedt 
and Elias Warner 

15th District, Nobles and Murray — 
Senator S. B. Bedford 
Representative Herman Nelson 

16th District, Rock and Pipestone — 
Senator S. B. Duea 
Representative Harrison White 

17th Dist., Lincoln, Lyon and Yellow Medi- 
cine — 
Senator O. A. Lende 

Representatives K. G. Skartum, Edwin 
F. Whiting, and J. N. Johnson 

18th Dist., Lac qui Parle and Chippewa — 
Senator O. G. Dale 
Representatives Albert J. Peterson 
and P. J. Mettling 

19th Dist., Redwood and Brown — 

Senator Frank Clague 

Representatives Jos. R. Keefe 

and Albert Pfaender 
30th District, Nicollet— 

Senator Henry N. Benson 

Representative Ole Peterson 



21st District, Sibley— 

Senator A. A. Poehler 
Representative Geo. A. MacKenzla 

22nd District, Renville — 
Senator Frank Murray 
Representatives N. J. Holmberg 
and Frank Hopkins 

23rd District, Meeker — 
Senator E. P. Peterson 
Representative John A. Sampson 

24th District, McLeod— 

Senator C. R. Donaldson 
Representative G. W. Brown 

25th District, Carver — 
Senator C. H. Klein 
Representative H. R. Diessner 

26th District, Scott- 
Senator J. A. Coller 
Representative J. J. Moriarity 

27th District, Le Sueur— 
Senator Harry F. Weis 
Representatives Geo. H. Denzer 
and Martin Schwartz 

28th District, Rice- 
Senator F. L. Glotzbach 
Representatives F. L. Klemer 
and Geo. D. Reed 

29th District, Goodhue— 
Senator A. J. Rockne 
Representatives Frank Boothroyd, Geo. 
H. Voxland, and A. V. Anderson 

30th District, Dakota- 
Senator Albert Schaller 
Representatives W. H. Wescott 
and Joseph Peters 

31st District, Washington- 
Senator Geo. H. Sullivan 
Representatives Andrew Anderson 
and O. Hauge 

32nd District, Chisago, Pine and Kanabec— 
Senator V. L. Johnson 
Representatives Henry Rines 
and Henry P. Webb 

33rd District, First and Second Wards, St. 
Paul — 
Senator W. W. Dunn 
Representatives J. A. A. Burnquist 
and E. J. Fuchs 

34th Dist., Third, Ninth and part of Eighth 
Wards, St. Paul- 
Senator James Handlan 
Representatives Henry W. McDonald, 
Robert J. Clarke and Thomas J. Greene 

35th Dist., Fifth and Sixth Wards, St. Paul — 
Senator Peter Van Hoven 
Representatives John P. Jelinek 
and Jos. J. Hurley 

36th Dist., Fourth, Seventh and part of 
Eighth Wards, St. Paul- 
Senator James D. Denegre 
Representatives J. D. O'Brien 
and C. E. Stone 

37th Dist., part of Eighth Ward, Tenth and 
Eleventh Wards, St. Paul — 
Senator J. M. Hackney 
Representatives Charles N. Orr 
and Edwin G. Perry 

3Sth Dist., First Ward and part of Third 
Ward, Minneapolis! — 
Senator N. A. L'Herault 
Representatives M. J. Sullivan 
and Peter C. Thielen. 



39th Dist., Second and Ninth Wards, Minne- 
apolis and Town of St. Anthony — 
Senator James T. Elwell 
Representatives W. F. Kunze 
and P. L. Palmer 

40th Dist., Fourth Ward, Minneapolis — 
Senator Wm. S. Dwinnell 
Representatives Wm. A. Fisher and 
Charles R. Fowler ♦ 

41st Dist., Fifth and Sixth Wards, Minne- 
apolis — 
Senator Geo. P. Wilson 
Representatives Thomas Kneeland, John 
G. Lennon, John P. Nash, and W. D. 
Washburn 

42nd Dist., Seventh, Eleventh and Twelfth 
Wards, Minneapolis, Village of Edina 
and Towns of Richfield, Bloomington, 
Eden Prairie and Village and Town 
of Excelsior, Hennepin County — 
Senator Manley L. Fosseen 
Representatives Wm. A. Campbell 
and Ernest Lundeen 

43rd Dist., Eighth and Thirteenth Wards, 
Minneapolis, and Towns of Corcoran, 
Greenwood, Medina, Independence, 
Minnetonka, Plymouth, Minnetrista, 
Maple Grove, Orono, and Villages Gold- 
en Valley, St. Louis Park, West Min- 
neapolis, Minnetonka Beach and Way- 
zata, Hennepin County — 
Senator Carl L. Wallace 
Representatives L. A. Lydiari 
and W. I. Nolan 

44th Dist., part of Third Ward and Tenth 
Ward, Minneapolis, and Villages of 
Crystal, Robbinsdale, Osseo, and Towns 
of Crystal Lake, Brooklyn, Champlin, 
Dayton, and Hassan, Hennepin Coun- 
ty- 
Senator John W. Pauly 
Representatives Alex McNeil 
and George M. Nye 
45th Dist., Isanti, Anoka, Mille Lacs and 
Sherburne Counties, excepting Sev- 
enth Ward, St. Cloud- 
Senator C. J. Swanson 
Representatives Rufus P. Morton, Rob- 
ert C. Dunn, and Andrew Davis 

46th Dist., Wright- 
Senator Geo. C. Carpenter 
Representatives August Hafften 
and J. F. Lee 

47th Dist., Benton County, Seventh Ward, 
St. Cloud in Sherburne County, City 
of St. Cloud, and Towns of St. Cloud 
and LeSauk in Stearns County — 
Senator J. D. Sullivan 
Representative L. Wisniewski 
48th Dist., Morrison and Crow Wing Coun- 
ties- 
Senator C. D. Johnson 
Representatives C. W. Bouck 
and L. D. Brown 
49th Dist., Seventh and Eighth Wards, City 
of Duluth, County of St. Louis, and 
all that part of township 49 north, of 
range 15 west, not embraced in said 
city; all of township 50 north, of 
range 15 west, and all that part of 
the County of St. Louis lying to the 
, westward of the range line or the 
same extended between ranges 15 and 
16 west, in said County — 
Senator James P. Boyle 
Representatives John A. Hcaly 
and C. T. Knapp. 



50th Dist., Third, Fifth and Sixth Wards of 
the City of Duluth, County of St- 
Louis, and all that part of said coun- 
ty outside the City of Duluth and ly- 
ing between the range line between 
ranges 13 and 16 in said County — 
Senator Thomas M. Pugh 
Representatives Anton Borgen 
and Edward R. Ribenack 

51st Dist., Counties of Lake and Cook, the 
First, Second and Fourth Wards of 
the City of Duluth, in the County of 
St. Louis, and all that part of said 
County not within said City and lying 
to the eastward of the range line* be- 
tween ranges 13 and 14, or the same 
extended in said County — 

Senator H. W. Cheadle 

Representatives Chester A. Congdoo 

and Nels S. Hillman 

52nd Dist., Carlton, Aitkin, Itasca, Koochi- 
ching and Cass Counties — 
Senator D. M. Gunn 
Representatives C. H. Warner 
and T. M. Ferguson 

53rd Dist., Hubbard, Wadena and Todd Coun- 
ties — 
Senator James Johnston 
Representatives Leonard H. Riee 
and Wm. T. Stone 

54th Dist., Stearns County, except the City 
of St. Cloud and towns of St. Cloud 
and Le Sauk — 

Senator J. J. Ahmann 

Representatives Frank E. Minette 

and A. M. Utecht 
55th Dist., Kandiyohi County — 

Senator C. W. Odell 

Representative C. E. Johnson 
56th Dist., Swift and Bigstone Counties — 

Senator S. J. Froshaug 

Representative Knut Knutson 

57th Dist., Traverse, Grant, and Steven* 
Counties — 
Senator Edward Rustad 
Representatives J. E. Peterson 
and L. C. Spooner 

58th Dist., Pope and Douglas Counties — 
Senator C. J. Gunderson 
Representatives J. J. Anderson 
and Iver J. Lee 

59th Dist., Ottertail County- 
Senator Ole 0. Sageng 
Representatives J. T. Johnson, 
R. J. Lindberg, Alex Nelson 
and H. A. Putnam 

60th Dist., Wilkin, Clay, and Becker Coun- 
ties — 

Senator C. S. Marden 
Representative Moyle Edwards, 8. N. 
Lee, and Phillip S. Converse 

61st Dist., Norman, Beltrami, Clearwater. 
Mahnomen and Red Lake Counties — 
Senator A. L. Hanson 
Representatives C. L. Sulerud 
and D. P. O'Neill 

62nd Dist., Polk County- 
Senator John Saugstad 
Representatives Knut Aker 
and John Holten 

63rd Dist., Marshall, Roseau and Kittson 
Counties — 
Senator B. E. Sundberg 
Representatives Donald Robertson 
and G. H. Mattson 



THE AUTOMOBILE IN POLITICS. 

Master Lewis Langley was speaking. There was confidence, and 
scorn, in his voice: "I should say not; ours is a Packard — and it's got 
six." 

That was sufficient to satisfy his inquisitors. A six-cylinder Packard 
was patrician in price, appearance and equipment. Its name was one of 
standing in the social and commercial world. The possession of such a 
car by the father of the youngster clearly established his right to a place 
of prominence among these juvenile elite. For be it known, that was the 
issue in the present controversy. This boy was the latest arrival at camp 
and the others had been in some doubt as to how to receive him. Ac- 
cordingly, they had proceeded to take his measure, using the only in- 
fallible standard. 

Young John Percival Lane began the examination with deft indirect- 
ness. "Pa sold our 1910 Peerless," he remarked, apropos of nothing in 
particular. 

"Didn't it run " inquired George Thomas, whose slowness of wit 
had not enabled him to grasp the real situation. 

"Sure!" sneered J. Percival; "but it was old." 

"We've got three — and the trimmest electric for mother," contrib- 
uted Addison Phelps. 

Four other small boys issued similar "feelers" which conveyed the 
information that their family cars were the Pierce-Arrow, Locomobile, 
Stevens-Duryea, and Thomas-Flyer. Still the newcomer was silent and 
John Percival Jones brought the whole matter to a head by this crucial 
question: "Is yours a Ford?" The answer is recorded above. 

Those fifteen boys out for a month in the country ranged in ages 
from seven to eleven. They were a lively lot, and for hours I listened, 
taking notes. From a careful computation of the composite opinion of 
the camp, these conclusions were deduced, and they may be accepted as 
fairly reliable: 

High priced Automobile of Current Model. Family Standing. . 100% 

High priced Automobile of Last Year's Model. Family Standing 50% 

Low priced Automobile of Any Model, Family Standing...... 10% 

There were no Indians in those woods; no pirates upon the lake; 
nothing save the reflected ideal of money from the home. Above any 
boy's ability to dive, or fight, or climb, was the family motor. That was 
the ultimate measure of his standing now. Superiority was no longer 
based upon boyish bravery, or suppleness of mind and limb. Towering 
over all his playmates, stood the weakest and least imaginative, if per- 
chance his father's auto was most modern and monstrous. 

Do I need to suggest that if those boys were men, statesmen, they 
would be lured by the same call of commercialism and led, either know- 
ingly or unknowingly, by those who possess and have power? 

Perhaps we are reaching still a step beyond those boys in our citi- 
zenship. At times we seem even to approach the airship age in politics. 
The means and methods of administering government have been typified 
by the automobile — on the same plane, but brutally powerful, and too 
often indifferent to the needs and aspirations of the plain people. Now 
the tendency of politicians and their predatory masters is to rise higher 
than the masses. It is the purpose of this story of legislative life to 
point out some of the evidences of our political flight above the level 
of fundamental democracy. 

It matters not that aeronauts in the airship of state may curse — and 
fall. 



DEFINITIONS AND INTRODUCTIONS. 

I am attempting nothing new. Every other political epoch since 
time began has been marked by the same conflict between special priv- 
ilege and the general good. Laws and "the law's delays" have been the 
issue in all the contests of property with patriotism. My story is but 
a fleeting incident in the world-old, world-long struggle for equitable 
self government. Nor have the chief actors in the drama of government 
changed with the centuries. It is only because those who participate in 
this play are, for the moment, acting under new titles of stigma or of 
honor, that we should seek to identify them: 

Special Interests. — Any form or kind of business, with a predatory 
purpose, or which gains through public loss, is now known politically 
as a special interest. All such institutions thrive upon special privileges 
which could not exist without immunities or favors from some depart- 
ment of government. Among the special interests which separately or 
collectively controlled the Minnesota legislature of 1911 were: 

First. — The brewers and allied liquor forces. This most active and 
powerful of all special interests in the state directly elected many mem- 
bers of both branches and conducted a successful defensive fight against 
any and all legislation intended to curtail their business or political op- 
erations. 

Second. — The United States Steel Corporation whose selfish interest 
in state government consists largely in escaping the payment of mil- 
lions in taxes and in continuing its opportunity to secure and exploit our 
mineral resources. 

Third. — The transportation trust which preys upon the public through 
watered stock and extortionate, discriminative rates. 

Fourth. — A long list of such corporations as the Twin City Rapid 
Transit Company, the Northwestern Telephone Compan)', the liability 
insurance companies and the employers of labor generall}'. I am not 
undertaking here to name them all or to designate the legislative axe 
each had to sharpen for the public, but only to suggest the existence 
and activity of a great diversity of special interests. 

These, and all the special interests not suggested, were almost with- 
out exception satisfied with conditions as they were. Their influence 
was obstructive and not constructive. The brewery combine was espec- 
ially interested in the defeat of county option and a score of other re- 
forms dealing directly with the liquor traffic. The steel trust was in the 
legislature to see that its contribution to the support of the state was 
not raised through a tonnage tax or any other method. The "railroad 
ring" was on hand to prevent the enactment of a distance tariff law and 
a number of minor reforms. The Twin City Rapid Transit Co. appar- 
ently accomplished the defeat of the "firemen's bill" as well as others 
which conflicted with their capitalistic desires. These suggestions as to 
the special privileges each individual interest had to protect and defend 
against reform legislation is incomplete but sufficient to give just a flash- 
light of general conditions. The "time exposure" showing more of de- 
tails, will follow in subsequent chapters. 

For the present, keep this main fact in mind: The success of in- 
dividual special interests in killing bills in which they were directly and 
selfishly concerned, which aggregated a large number, many of the high- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 7 

est importance, was in itself of small consequence when compared with 
the power and potency of their combined opposition to all fundamental 
measures which would endanger them by giving larger political oppor- 
tunities to the people. Led by the corrupt brewery combine, all the 
special interests accomplished the defeat of every vital reform affecting 
the corporations, save one. A partial list of defeated reforms includes: 

1. The initiative and referendum. 

2. The Sulerud constitutional amendment bill. 

3. The recall. 

4. Woman's suffrage. 

5. The Oregon plan of a corrupt practices act, with publicity 
pamphlet. 

6. Extension of primary to state officers. 

7. Selection of presidential delegates by popular vote. 

8. Employers' liability act. 

9. Civil service. 

10. The income tax. 

No special interest could ever gain and maintain an advantage over 
the people without the assistance of ignorant or unscrupulous politicians. 
Predatory corporations and politicians travel together. It is not pos- 
sible for any department of government to be "controlled" through ex- 
terior agencies alone. Graft from without must always be coupled with 
some sort of grasping from within — which brings us to the second larg- 
est fact in law-making, 

The Reactionary — One who, by opposing a larger scope and scheme 
of democracy, represents the special interests- It does not matter about 
the motive or compensation. Some reactionaries serve special interests 
honestly because, torylike, they have no faith in the people and are op- 
posed to giving them greater political power. Others serve the special 
privilege class ignorantly, being mere tools of the system. But most 
reactionaries are paid for their services — some in flattery, some in antic- 
ipated or fulfilled ambitions, some in local appropriations, some in po- 
litical preferment or plunder, some in campaign expenses, some in busi- 
ness or professional opportunities — it does not matter how. The point 
is that the reactionary, or standpatter, or obstructionist, represents in 
politics the special interests and not the people. 

Professional Politician — One who in his acts and inclinations adds 
to the special interest work of the reactionary the element of personal 
and political plunder. "Hold-up" legislation, brewery banquets, the 
guarding of clocks and legislative extravagance in its manifold ramifica- 
tions are indications of this class. 

These inseparable associates (1) the special interests, and (2) their 
legislative allies, the reactionaries and professional politicians, have been 
the leading anti-democratic influences in Minnesota law-making for many 
years. But at this last session two somewhat unusual elements became 
conspicuous and powerful. They were various executive departments 
of the state government, and a number of defeated and discredited for- 
mer members of both House and Senate. 

State Departments — The reactionary legislative influence of several 
state officials can hardly be overstated. Emissaries close to Governor 
Eberhart lobbied against practically all progressive reform measures. 
The Secretary of State stood in with the reactionaries sufficiently to 
escape with political plunder and have his illegal acts condoned. The 
insurance department was also whitewashed and retained its authority 



,8 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

to contribute substantially to the state and federal machine by the ap- 
pointment of Tom, Dick and Harry as inspectors whose chief aim in 
office was too often the serving- of big politicians higher up. The Rail- 
road and Warehouse Commission secured added political opportunity to 
serve the reactionary state machine by the Nash weights and measures 
law which gives the board arbitrary authority to appoint and regulate 
a horde of inspectors. The Highway Commission gained in. the same 
way through the R. C. Dunn bill providing for the appointment of many 
engineers or overseers of highways — and politics. There was also the 
State Board of Health which had to ward off an investigation and fur- 
ther attempted to influence the legislature to destroy more local rights in 
sanitation matters, bestowing them upon itself, with the result that more 
political positions would have been available. 

These are only straws to indicate the general direction and velocity 
of the political wind. Like the special interests, several state depart- 
ments had things to cover up, and they desired also to enlarge their 
fields of operation, politically and otherwise. These departments, with 
all their appointees and beneficiaries, comprised a powerful combination. 
Its forces were employed both to defend and extend its own machinery. 
Add this political army, wisely generaled, commissaried and equipped 
at public expense, to the special interest camp and it is indeed wonder- 
ful that the insurgents developed as much strength as they did. 

"Alumni Coaches." — In order to understand this new element, its 
origin and results, a brief biennial review is necessary. 

The session of 1909 was characterized by a combination which at 
all times controlled for the corporations and politicians. A record of 
men and measures was collected by the Minnesota Citizens' League and 
circulated as generally as limited means would allow. The publicity thus 
secured, together with other reform influences, resulted directly in the 
retirement or defeat of a large majority of the members of the old spe- 
cial interest-professional politician machine which had been kept intact 
for years in the legislature. A number of such senators and representa- 
tives retired voluntarily, most of them through fear of facing their bad 
records. This list includes Senators E. E. Smith, J. F. Calhoun, W. A. 
Hinton and D. S. Hall, and Representatives Burdett Thayer, W. A.. No- 
lan, John Zelch, L. H. Johnson, Hugh N. Allen, J. A. Gates and sev- 
eral others of their political class. Added to these voluntary elimina- 
tions, the following machine members were defeated at the primaries: 
Senators A. S. Campbell, V. B. Seward, S. F. Alderman, E. S. Durment, 
C« A. Johnson, P. R. Vail and J. E. C. Robinson; and Representatives 
John Dalzell, Dr. J. H. Dorsey, F. E. Nimocks, F. B. Wright, Elmer A. 
Kling, Jos. Friedman, Henry Emmel, Alwin Rowe. T. J. Brady. Hub- 
bard Carey, R. L. Mork and others. 

The general election, November 8th, eliminated practically all the 
remaining members of the old stand-pat machine. Senators A. D. Ste- 
phens, George R. Laybourn, George D. French and Ray G. Farrington 
were defeated; and Representatives R. J. Wells, Frank T. White, F. E. 
Gartside, Otis F. Doyle, and Oscar F. Christensen also fell by the way- 
side. 

The 1911 session started with that advantage for the people over its 
immediate predecessor — the loss of the shrewdest and most extreme re- 
actionaries. That is how and where the "alumni system of coaching" 
was ushered in. The interests had lieutenants in the legislature, but the 
real generals were those who directed events from the outside. The "fine 
work" of leadership was accomplished in hotel conferences by some of 
the defeated, discredited manipulators of the previous session. Other- 
wise the results would have been different — and more democratic. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 9 

Insurgent. — One who places principle above party. A group of such 
progressives, a minority in both branches, were opposed to all the forces 
and influences of the special interests. These insurgents refused to obey 
the dictates of "senatorial courtesy" or any form of political convention- 
ality when the welfare of the public was at stake. They hewed to the 
line at all times, being unmoved by any consideration of friendship, flat- 
tery, appropriations or patronage. 



Now that the chief actors have been presented, we are ready to 
proceed with the play. Logically, the first appearance should be that of 
the Speaker of the House. His is the pivotal position in both cast and 
action. But in this case the regular order of the play shall be reversed. 
In the next few chapters I shall discuss certain effects due almost di- 
rectly to the election of the Speaker favored by the special interests and 
professional politicians and then consider the cause itself, the Speaker- 
ship. Let the curtain rise — upon a scene of political rapacity unprece- 
dented in the history of the state. 



CHAPTER I. 
ABOUT THE PLUNDERBUND. 

I paused here on the threshold of the story to sharpen my pencil. 
That operation was productive of more than a pencil point; it suggested 
a view point from which to approach this study of the session. As I 
whittled with my humble blade, I wondered about the 708 pocket knives 
bought by the last legislature. Although naturally not suspicious, I 
dropped into speculation as to whether or not that number of knives 
was actually purchased; and I further reflected as to whether it would 
be more unpatriotic to purchase only a semi-legitimate number — enough 
to supply each of the 120 House members and 63 senators — and have 
the people pay for 708, or actually to buy 708 and apportion 525 of them 
among the pockets of petty politicians. Were as many bought as were 
paid for? If so, where did they go? Who profited by the profligacy? 

It was not alone a matter of knives, it was everything — fountain 
pens, 499 of them at an average cost of $3.13, and other items in pro- 
portionate price and quantity. Did this situation represent graft or only 
the grossest extravagance? I shall not attempt to answer, but will open 
the portals of plunder and let you wander among the facts and figures 
to your own conclusion. 

BY THE SECEETABY OF STATE. 

When the session assembled each member found upon his desk a 
large pasteboard box containing a great variety of things — some station- 
ery, a knife, fountain pen, paste, ink, etc., etc. The vouchers for this 
assortment, known legislatively as "the batch," conveyed the informa- 
tion that the purchases were made by the Secretary of State and "author- 
ized by law." "The batch" for both branches included 282 fountain pens 
— a hundred more than sufficient to supply the members — and 288 pocket 
knives. It is only justice to the Chief Clerk of the House and the Sec- 
retary of the Senate, who made the later purchases of supplies, to give 
in detail what Mr. Schmahl bought, although it does make the subsequent 
acquisition of fountain pens and pocket knives seem slightly unnecessary. 
"The batch" w r as made up as follows: 

Houston Pen Co. DuoClain & Gray Co. 

282 fountain pens $846.90 12 qts. ink $10.00 



The Gi'eat Western Ptg. Co. 



18 doz. erasei's 37.50 



216 boxes rubber bands $84.24 }* &*■ *£ 9-30 

24 gross rubber bands 60.60 lj> Q ts - library paste 9.38 

18 gross rubber bands 16.92 240 scratch pads 27.60 

50 lbs. twine 10.00 216 pen holders 8.92 

3,000 blotters 10.00 216 pen holders 6.30 

17 reams paper 80.75 216 blu e Pencils 9.55 

6 reams bond paper 9.00 21 6 pencils 7.40 

5 reams paper 62.00 864 nens 6.00 

r , „ ^ X 864 P ens s - m 

Lo "}S F. Dow Co. 864 s 7#50 



864 pens 6.00 



150 paper boxes $27.00 

250 paper boxes 30.00 

200 boxes of fasteners 15.00 Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co. 

200 paper box fasteners 18.00 288 pocket knives $511.92 

264 packages pins 22.00 216 wire baskets 64.80 

20 doz. bottles paste 60.00 792 pencils 29.70 



McGill Warner Co. 



200 boxes clips 20.00 

240 rulers 80.00 



KJ&SSJr? . m :. B : :::::: : W, S ™ ■»■>« ^v ::::::::::::::::: : «*► 

48,500 envelopes 217.25 Union Brass & Metal Co. 

2,000 "An act" sheets 50.00 24 brass card holders $38.4fr 

Total cost of "the batch," $4,494.61. Average per member, $24.99. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 



11 



If the supposition of Representative J. T. Johnson (referred to 
later) as to fountain pens is true, and the same "liberal" price was paid 
for other things in "the batch," the state might have been saved $1,797.84 
of its total cost. If unnecessary items had been eliminated almost all 
of that $4,494.61 bill could have been saved. 

January 3d, the opening day of the session, W. F. Kunze offered this 
usual resolution, which was adopted by a vote of 96 to 1: 

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk be, and is hereby, instructed to purchase such supplies 
as are necessary for expediting the business of the House, including a copy of the anno- 
tated statutes. 

That constituted the Chief Clerk's license to do the things which we 
are to consider in this chapter. A similar resolution was adopted in the 
Senate, giving to the Secretary of that body the same opportunity. Some 
of their phenomenal purchases are grouped, the items included in "the 
batch" by the Secretary of State being indicated by a star: 

POCKET KNIVES FOR THE HOUSE. 

No. bought Price paid Date paid 

Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co »192 $341.28 Jan. 23 

Louis P. Dow Co / 6 21.00 Jan. 30 

McGill Warner Co 24 54.00 Feb. 2 

McGill Warner Co «* 42 53.50 Feb. 2 

Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co 36 41.50 Feb. 2 

Louis F. Dow Co 60 150.00 Feb. 8 

Louis F. Dow Co 12 36.00 Feb. 8 

McGill Warner Co 72 150.00 Apr. 15 

Totals 444 $841.28 

POCKET KNIVES FOR THE SENATE, 

No. bought Price paid Date paid 

Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co *96 $170.64 Jan. 23 

McGill Warner Co 72 106.00 Jan. 26 

McGill Warner Co 48 62.00 Feb. 20 

McGill Warner Co 12 13.5© Feb. 20 

Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co 36 41.50 Apr. 19 

Totals 264 $393.64 

Four hundred and forty-four pocket knives for 120 House members 
and 264 pocket knives for 63 Senators! Who got the rest? Even if 
every employee of both branches, all the "alumni coaches" and brewery 
lobbyists were supplied there would still be several hundred to be ac- 
counted for. And there are citizens of the state who even maintain that 
lawgivers themselves should not be supplied with knives at the expense 
of the people any more than they should be given socks, shaving sets 
or manicure machinery. 

FOUNTAIN PENS FOR THE HOUSE. 

Bought from No. bought Price paid Date paid 

Houston Pen Co *188 $564.60 Jan. 28 

Louis F. Dow Co '. . .*. 2 9.00 Jan. 30 

Houston Pen Co 48 144.00 Feb. 2 

McGill Warner Co 40 100.00 Feb. 2 

McGill Warner Co 2 8.75 Feb. 2 

Louis F. Dow Co 6 30.00 Feb. 17 

Louis F. Dow Co 4 29.50 Apr. 15 

Louis F. Dow Co 3 21.00 Apr. 15 

McGill Warner Co 25 106.25 Apr. 15 

Houston Pen Co 48 144.00 Apr. 18 

Louis F. Dow Co 2 6.50 Apr. 22 

Totals 368 $1,163.60 

FOUNTAIN PENS FOR SENATE. 

Bought from No. bought Price paid Date paid 

Houston Pen Co *94 $282.00 Jan. 20 

McGUl Warner Co 20 66.00 Feb. 20 

McGill Warner Co 3 8.25 Mar. 31 

McGill Warner Co 2 5.00 Mar. 31 

Houston Pen Co 12 36.00 Apr. 15 

Totals 131 $397.25 



12 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

When one remembers that the Secretary of State was very gener- 
ous, perhaps even profligate, supplying 99 more fountain pens than was 
necessary to equip all the members of both branches, a query or two 
becomes pertinent. Why did the Chief Clerk of the House and Secre- 
tary of the Senate subsequently buy 211 more fountain pens, and to 
whom were they given? 

I am indebted to Representative J. T. Johnson for some illuminat- 
ing facts concerning the price paid. Mr. Johnson did not think the state 
was getting quite value received for its pen expenditures and he wrote 
to the Houston Pen Company for a price on what he decided was the 
identical pen used by the commonweath in such generous quantities. 
He solicited this information, not as a legislator, but as the proprietor 
of a drug store at Fergus Falls. The Houston Pen Company quoted 
him a wholesale price of $1-80 each, with 2% off for cash, and "a hand- 
some oak, plate glass display case" if two dozen were ordered at one 
time. The House and Senate in some way utilized 390 of these Houston 
pens at $3.00 each. 

SHEARS AND SCISSORS. 

The detailed account of legislative expenditures in this direction is 
interesting and instructive. Study the items. The House comes first: 

Bought from No. bought Price paid Date paid 

Louis F. Dow Co 1 pr. $2.75 -Jan. 30 

Pioneer Co 48 pr. 60.00 Feb. 2 

McGill Warner Co 87 pr. 68.25 Feb. 2 

Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co 36 pr. 38.00 Feb. 2 

Louis F. Dow Co 12 pr. 75.00 Feb. 8 

Louia F. Dow Co 3 pr. 13.50 Feb. 8 

Totals 187 pr. $257.50 

SHEARS AND SCISSORS FOR SENATE. 

Bought from No. bought Price paid Date paid 

Wallblom Furniture Co 1 pr. $0.95 Jan. 6 

McGill Warner Co 3 pr. 5.25 Jan. 22 

Pioneer Co 24 pr. 30.00 Jan. 22 

McGill Warner Co 24 pr. 30.00 Feb. 3 

McGill Warner Co 12 pr. 7.50 Feb. 20 

McGill Warner Co 2 pr. 3.50 Mar. 31 

Pioneer Press Co 1 pr. 1.00 Apr. 19 



Totals 67 pr. $78.20 

STATIONERY FOR THE PRESENT AND POSTERITY. 

The following items of stationery were purchased for the House, 
only the printer, quantity and price being given: 

McGill Warner Co. 1,000 letterheads 10.00 

30,000 letterheads $150.00 150 envelopes 4.50 

20,000 envelopes 70.00 

10,000 envelopes 50.00 Lonis F. Dow Co. 

1,000 letterheads 132,000 letterheads 

1,000 envelopes 20.00 132,000 envelopes $3,232.00 

1,000 letterheads 7.000 letterheads 45.50 

1.000 envelopes 20.00 7,000 envelopes 52.50 

10,000 letterheads 50.00 1,000 envelopes 7.50 

10,000 envelopes 50.00 1,000 letterheads 6.50 

20,600 letterheads 100.00 1 ,000 envelopes 7.50 

20,000 envelepes 87.50 1,000 letterheads 6.50 

The Senate used, or in time expects to use: 

McGill Warner Co. 75,000 letterheads 112.50 

20,000 letterheads $100.00 SO, 000 envelopes 350.09 

18,500 envelopes 97.25 5,000 envelopes 37.59 

10,000 letterheads 50.00 4,000 letterheads and envelopes. . . . 60.00 

2 doz. envelopes 1.10 Embossed stationery 20.00 

3,000 second sheets 6.75 6,000 letter heads 39.00 

7,500 envelopes 32.50 700 envelopes S.59 

11,000 letterheads 55.00 5.000 letterheads 25.00 

6 doz. envelopes 4.20 Louis F. Dow Co. 

Note heads and envelopes 1S7.50 10,000 letterheads 

80,000 letterheads 400.00 10,000 envelopes $140.00 

Total for stationery for House and Senate $5,726.80 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 



13 



SCRATCH PADS EXHIBIT. 

The item indicating that the state paid as high as forty cents each 
for scratch paper pads revives one's inclination to stop and moralize a 
little. These were for both branches: 

Louis F. Dow Co. 



200 scratch pads 80.00 

McGill Warner Co. 

48 scratch pads 6.00 

212 scratch pads 21.50 



Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co. 

36 scratch pads $5.25 

72 scratch pads 10.40 

75 scratch pads 15.00 

McClain Gray Co. 

240 scratch pads $27.6© 



OFFICE FURNITURE. 



The following items of furniture were purchased by the Chief Clerk 
of the House of Representatives, only the dealer, article and price being 



given: 

Gi>ibben Lumber Co. 

Mahogany desk and chair $125.00 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

4 desks $480.00 

1 desk 70.00 

1 desk 75.00 

2 desks 160.00 

1 desk 75.00 

8 chairs, 11 filing cases 218.00 

2 file cases 38.00 

20 file cases 120.00 

15 transfer files 90.00 

24 chairs 108.00 

1 chair 12.00 

1 chair 16.00 

6 chairs $60.00 



1 stand 10.00 

1 table 14.00 

1 hat rack 14.00 

McGill Warner Co. 



chair 17.50 

chairs 25.00 

chair 7.50 

desks 345.00 

desks 112.50 

desk 35.00 

desk and chair 37.50 

cabinette 40.00 

tables 80.00 

chair 7.50 



Total for House furniture $2,392.50 



The Senate furniture consisted of three dozen chairs purchased from 
the Wallblom Furniture Co. for $90.00. There was some difference be- 
tween the two branches in this particular and I asked an old timer why 
the upper body bought so much less. He said it was probably because 
less of the Senate furniture used at the previous session had been 
stolen — which brings us to the delicate question: What has become of 
the property bought biennially for the legislature? Did it wear out in 
four months or have spigot statesmen been accustomed to ship it home? 
Most of the furniture bought at this session was saved to the state. This 
was due largely to the different insurgent resolutions safeguarding sup- 
plies. 

Representative Kerry E. Conley compiled a partially complete list 
of the incidental supplies purchased, articles which should not have been 
used up, with the price paid, which follows: 



2 stamp afflxers $100.00 

1 protectograph 35.00 

6 cut glass ink wells 15.00 

3 file sections 15.00 

1 doz. perfection oilers 3.00 

3 flexible rulers 4.50 

McGill's fasteners 70.00 

1 inkwell mat 1.50 

1 Webster's pencil sharpener 3.00 

1 Hotchkiss machine 2.25 

4 doz. large wire baskets 48.00 

4 doz. pr. shears 60.00 

2 eyelet presses 9.00 

1 document case 7.50 

3 prs. shears 5.25 

1 Webster pencil sharpener 3.50 

1 dating machine 5.00 

1 doz. letter files 5.00 

1 water pitcher 3.50 

1 cut glass pitcher 4.00 

1 mirror 2.25 

1 cut glass ink stand 7.75 

3ti India water jugs 23.40 

6 nickel trays 1.50 



6 doz. heavy tumblers 3.60 

3 large willow baskets 2.85 

3 heavy butcher baskets 7.50 

1 doz. turkey dusters 12.00 

6 heavy galvanized pails 3.90 

1 doz. cuspidor brushes 1.20 

3 mop pails and ringers 8.25 

1 doz. dust pans 3.00 

1 hair brush for Speaker 1.50 

1 comb for Speaker .75 

12 rubber mats 6.00 

3 floor brushes 5.25 

Hair brush and comb for C. Clk... 2.25 

1 carpet sweeper 3.00 

2 doz. rubber mats j_ 12.00 

15 doz. inkwells 126.00 

24 cuspidors 96.00 

12 clipless fasteners 42.00 

1 branding iron $12.00 

10 copy holders 25.00 

6 cut glass red ink wells 12.00 

3 Maxim moisteners 1.50 

2 cuspidors 6.00 

1 doz. Challenge eyelets S6.§0 



14 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 



1 doz. flexible rulers 12.00 

1 flexible ruler 1.00 

3 Ideal copy holders 6.00 

1 doz. No. 1232 cuspidors 27.00 

4 doz. Pico letter files 20.00 

1 doz. Perfect oilers 3.00 

2 No. 794 wire baskets 2.00 

53 rubber stamps 22.50 

1 Triumph eyelet punch 2.50 

1 Superior postal scale 2.50 

1 No. 50a Bates numbering machine. 15.00 

2 doz. Seng Busch ink stands 48.00 

2 letter files 1.60 

1 water pitcher 3.00 

6 glasses 3.38 

1 ebony gavel 1.25 

2 doz. pr. 8-in. shears 20.00 

6 carpet sweepers 22.50 



6 doz. tumblers 4.50 

2 doz. hair brushes 24.00 

2 hotel carpet sweepers 9.50 

6 large water jugs '. 6.00 

2 doz. clothes brushes 24.00 

3 shoe blacking boxes 9.75 

6 pieces cleaning cloth 10.50 

1 doz. mop heads 1.80 

1 hatchet 75 

1 doz. hair brushes 13.80 

1 6-f t. step ladder .75 

2 carpet sweepers 6.00 

1 doz. waste baskets 9.50 

12 book shelves 6.00 

3 telephone brackets 15.00 

10 machine fasteners 30.00 

12 clipless fasteners 42.00 

4 clipless fasteners 14.00 



The item, "1 branding iron," may prove puzzling. When his atten- 
tion was called to that twelve dollar expenditure one of the insurgents 
suggested that it might have been purchased for the purpose of putting 
the brewery sign on Clinton Robinson or J. N. Johnson. At any rate, 
it must have had some use, for according to Mr. Conley's checking it was 
stolen with the other stuff. 

Mr. Conley sent the above list to the custodian at the capitol, with 
the request that that official check the articles which had been given 
into his keeping after the session adjourned, as all supplies and furniture 
should be. Of the entire list published above only the following articles 
were left behind, according to the checking of the custodian: 

Six cut glass ink wells, protectograph. 23 out of four dozen large 
wire baskets, six nickel trays, 13 out of six dozen heavy tumblers, 1 out 
of a dozen turkey dusters, two out of three willow baskets, 1 out of six 
pails, one dozen cuspidor brushes, one out of three mop pails and wring- 
ers, 9 out of a dozen dust pans, one out of three floor brushes, 32 out 
of 15 dozen ink wells, 6 out of twelve clipless fasteners, 6 out of ten copy 
holders, 10 out of 12 cuspidors, 12 out of four dozen letter files, 3 out of 
six carpet sweepers, 4 out of 24 clothes brushes, six cleaning cloths, 5 
out of a dozen mop heads, one dozen waste baskets, and two out of 
four clipless fasteners. 



The following purchases, only a 
of them included in any of the lists 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

Baskets and cuspidors $142.50 

Typewriter paper 59.50 

130 bottles of ink 32.50 



6 felt mats 
12 ink wells 



9.00 
5.40 



12 mucilage holders 4.20 

6 envelope openers B.OO 

1 index memo 1 .50 

3 calendars 3.00 

24 bottles of Ink 6.00 

1 ledger 12.00 

2 record books 7.50 

10 reams paper 24.00 

1 roll drawing paper 9.00 

Record books and typewriter ribbon 13.50 

1 bottle ink 25 

Typewriter paper, etc 394.50 

72 envelope openers 36.00 

24 boxes eyelets 7.50 

Typewriter oil 3 .00 

5 doz. erasers 12.50 

Carbon paper 18.00 

1 inkwell 2.00 

1 red ink bottle 50 

File boxes, etc 229.00 

96 envelope openers 48.00 



part of the total number, are none 
already published in this chapter: 

10 reams paper 25.00 

3 copy holders 6.00 

720 pencils 40.00 

72 pencils 8.70 

1 boxes carbon 50.00 

50 reams paper • 175.00 

5 M staples 5.00 

288 pencils 12.00 

1 00 note books 10.00 

144 erasers 21.60 

144 clips 14.40 

24 bottles of ink 6.00 

Frank P. Dufresne 

Annotated statutes 786.50 

Minnesota Law Book Co. 

2 sets Digest 40.00 

H. C. Boyeson Co. 

Supplies 4.50 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

8 boxes carbon paper 40.00 

1 1 boxes paper 44.00 

1 box pens 1.06 

Fritz & Cross 

1 20 perforated pads $90.00 

8 lbs. rubber bands 34.00 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 



15 



Pioneer Press Co. 

8 M clips 8.00 

12 calendars 9.00 

12 qts. ink 9.00 

24 typewriter records 18.00 

12 typewriter brushes 3.00 

12 bottles oil 2.40 

6 ink wells 3.00 

24 blotters 2.00 

24 pkgs. pins 2.40 

24 boxes clips 2.40 

6 paper weights 1.20 

2 boxes carbon 7.00 

24 ink wells 26.25 

6 boxes carbon 21.00 

1 box pens 1.50 

72 pencils 3.50 

864 rubber bands 2.10 

6 erasers 6.00 

McGill Warner Co. 

5 boxes rubber bands 25.00 

24 red ink bottles 6.00 

36 ink stands 9.00 

Knife cases 2.50 

6 spindles 60 

2 boxes carbon 9.50 

2 numbering machines 20.00 

1 quart mucilage -15 

1 quart ink 1-00 

156 pencils 7.00 

1 box typewriter paper 2.50 

3 stamp pads 1-75 

1 ring book 2.50 

1 eyelet press 2.50 

1 doz. boxes eyelets 2.25 

6 boxes paper 15.00 

6 memo books 1-50 

24 boxes paper 60.00 

12 boxes carbon 60.00 

20 pkgs. toilet paper 18.00 

1 dater 25 

1 arm rest 1-00 

84 pen holders 5.25 

24 erasers 6.55 

288 blotters 2.50 

24 note books 2.50 

4 rubber rulers 1.00 

8 boxes fasteners 1.40 

4 boxes pins -40 

1 doz. erasers 7.20 

6 copy holders 18.00 

1 pocket dictionary 25 

Henry B. Wedelstaedt 

10 boxes carbon 30.00 

10 reams paper 15.00 

12 memo books 2.50 

Less 2 per cent. 
McGill Warner Co. 

Error in bill 4.05 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

11 popy holders $33.00 

40 reams paper 160.00 

20 boxes carbon 100.00 

3 copy holders 10.50 

6 punches 19.50 

10 boxes eyelets 32.50 

15 boxes bands 44.25 

6 dictionaries 3.00 

Record books 10.00 

McGill Warner Co. 

Note books, etc 4.50 

Walter Salinger 

Engrossing Clapp election certificate 48.50 
Manheimer Bros. 
3 cut glass pitchers, 6 glasses and 

1 mirror 12.10 

Brown. Treacy & Sperry Co. 

1 qt. ink 1.50 

84 penholders 6.50 



6 gross pens 9.00 

14 bottles mucilage 1.50 

144 pencils 6.00 

Knife cases 1.00 

20 bottles paste 4. 00 

48 boxes rubber bands 32.40 

9M typewriter paper 12.20 

2 qts. ink 3.00 

1 M typewriter paper 4.00 

Sponges and cups 1 .SO 

10 boxes carbon paper 35.00 

10 reams typewriter paper 15.00 

1 binder 1.65 

1 env. distributor 1.35 

Pen rack and cards .40 

Vv'allblom Furniture Co. 

48 brooms 17.00 

36 boxes blacking 3.6O 

12 shoe brushes 4.20 

24 combs 6.00 

1 doz. sponges 2.40 

1 2 doz. cakes soap 12.00 

12 boxes nickel polish 4.20 

2 chamois skins 3.70 

8 doz. sapolio and soap 4.70 

6 scrubbing brushes 90 

24 boxes shoe blacking 2.40 

12 gross matches 15.00 

J. D. Neusame 

1 box eraso 3.00 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

Paper clips 35.00 

Carbon paper 85.00 

Typewriter paper 71.50 

Lead pencils 37.50 

1 filing case 16.00 

1 record 6.00 

150 memo books stamped in gold.. 300.00 

S. H. Drumm 

Services Wisconsin boundary case. . 225.00 
Dr. Eshelby 

Medical services 15.00 

Mark B. Dunnel 

3 sets Minnesota Digest 60.00 

John G. Lennon 

Contest expenses 251.00 

John P. Nash 

Contest expenses 250.00 

Pv. J. Clarke 

Contest expenses 250.00 

McGill Warner Co. 

4 M pocket manuals 950.00 

1,600 of same stamped in gold 720.00 

600 lettered in gold with member's 

name 170.00 

2 M auditor reports 312.50 

Prank B. Dufresne 

Law books 46.00 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

4S boxes carbon 220.00 

15 boxes files 30.00 

2 bottles ink 50 

Brushes and tacks 50 

Drawing paper 9.30 

2 Shannon boards 3.00 

20 lbs. rubber bands 25.00 

20 boxes paper 80.00 

2 rulers 2.00 

Ront adding machine 12.50 

1.440 lead pencils 60.00 

24 sheets carbon 1.80 

4 rolls adding paper 60 

Shannon boards, etc 2.90 

1 perforater .25 

144 bottles ink 36.00 

500 sheets paper 4.75 

3 dust files 1.50 

8 boxes eyelets 5.50 

, 120 boxes fasteners 24.00 



16 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 



2 rolhs adding paper 30 

30 reams paper $120.00 

12 boxes Smead envelopes 84.00 

15 reams paper 60.00 

5 boxes carbon 25.00 

1 Challenge press 3.50 

Miscellaneous 2.85 

130 letter files 65.00 

200 scored cards 3.50 

10 M gallery tickets 20.00 

Cards and paper 6.50 

30 boxes typewriter paper 120.00 

12 bottles ink 3.00 

Typewriter supplies 10.00 

20 reams carbon 100.00 

1 box Smead files 7.50 

Roosevelt visit expenses 11.25 

Walter Salinger 

Engrossing resolutions 81.25 

McGill Warner Co. 

1 doz. boxes 3.50 

26 boxes paper 53.50 

1 rubber stamp 1.00 

10 boxes carbon 50.00 

Knife cases 6.00 

62 record books 124.00 

1 stamp rack 4.25 

1 ruler 75 

Stamps, pads, etc 78.00 

24 binders 60.00 

24 pen fillers, rubber bands, etc.... 30.95 

1 M. "An act" sheets 87.50 

4 reams legal cap 30.00 

15 reams MSS coverB 112.50 

Holm & Olson 

Flowers for Roosevelt reception 100.00 

Flowers for Fisher funeral 38.50 

Desk decorations for Fisher funeral 26.50 

Highland Spring Co. 

1745 gal. spring water 87.25 

Elk Laundry Co. 

Washing towels 139.04 

Frank Dufresne 

Annotated statutes 162.50 

Wallblom Furniture Co. 

3 mop pails, etc 8.25 

6 clothes brushes 6.00 

1 tack hammer 25 

1 doz. dust pans 3.00 

1 doz. feather dusters 12.00 

24 rubber mats 12.00 

2 cuspidor brushes .40 

3 clothes baskets 2.85 

3 butcher baskets 7.50 

24 fancy jugs 10.80 

10 large fancy jugs 9.00 

36 hair brushes 36.00 

1 comb and brush 2.25 

6 large sponges 1.20 

3 floor brushes 5.25 

6 doz. towels 24.00 

1 doz. rubber mats 1.80 

1 doz. nickel polish 50 

24 match safes 3.60 

2 bolts cleaning cloth 4.70 

2 doz. cakes sapolio 2.40 

6 scrubbing brushes .90 

6 brass water bowls 2.10 

1 doz. willow baskets 9.00 

2 cut glass jugs 15.50 

4 cut glass tumblers 4.00 

3 doz. whisk brooms 9-00 

12 nickel trays 3.00 

5 doz. tumblers 3.30 

3 carpet sweepers 9.00 

1,728 boxes matches ' 15.00 

168 cakes toilet soap 14.00 

24 brooms H-00 

6 pails 3.9* • 



1 doz. mop heads i. 

48 boxes shoe blacking 4 

6 shoe blacking brushes 2 

36 combs with chains 9. 

144 lead pencils 5. 

1 doz. rubber erasers 

2 boxes rubber bands 1. 

2 chamois skins 3. 

2 doz. brass cuspidors 21. 

3 rulers 

72 pencil sharpeners 9. 

120 pencil holders 15. 

6 hair brushes with chains 7. 

Screw eyes, picture hooks, etc 

36 bars soaps 1. 

1 hamper l, 

6 nickel trays 1, 

1 large waste basket 1. 

1 case toilet paper 9, 

Rental on 4 desks 40. 

Rental on 5 lockers '. 15. 

1 doz waste baskets 9. 

McGill Warner Co. 

78 letter files 33. 

500 manuscript covers 5, 

1 U. S. dater 

Rubber bands 10, 

5 doz. note books 6 

1 doz. penholders 

2 gross pens 3. 

24 typewriter erasers 2. 

12 rubber rulers 2, 

1 doz. paper fasteners 18 

6 boxes staples 1, 

72 lead pencils 3, 

6 boxes typewriter paper 15 

1 pencil sharpener 3 

6 spindles 

2 boxes carbon paper 9 

1 numbering machine 15 

1 dating machine 5 

1 qt. mucilage 1 

1 qt. ink 1 

72 lead pencils 3 

3 mucilage bottles 

1 box typewriter paper 2 

1 postal scale 2 

The Pioneer Company 

1 gross pens 1, 

2 arm rests 1 

72 lead pencils 3 

' 72 rubber bands 2 

6 steel erasers 6 

12 typewriter brushes 3 

12 oil cans 3 

12 bottles oil 2 

6 ink wells 3 

24 desk blotters 2 

24 pkgs. pins 2 

24 boxes clips 2 

4 paper weights 

2 boxes carbon paper 7 

1 gross pins 1 

Typewriter ribbons 18 

McGill Warner Co. 

2 doz. key rings 2 

2,000 cards 3 

2 record books 11 

12 ink stands 6 

6 ink bottles 1 

12 pen racks 4 

60 letter openers 12 

12 memo books 3 

24 pen holders 1 

1 arm rest 1 

12 boxes typewriter paper 30 

12 letter files 5 

1 gross lead pencils 6 

5,000 sheets manila paper 3 



20 

SO 
10 
00 
50 
60 
40 
70 
60 
45 
00 
00 
50 



25 
50 
20 
75 
00 
00 
00 

GO 
00 
30 
00 
00 
75 
00 
50 
50 
.00 

so 

25 
00 
50 
60 
50 
00 
00 
50 
00 
25 
75 
50 
50 

50 
50 

60 
10 
00 
00 

.00 
40 
00 
00 
40 
40 
90 
00 
5» 
00 

00 
ad 
00 
08 
.50 
20 
50 
00 
,50 
00 
00 

oo 

50 

•0 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 



17 



Tri-State Tel. Co. 

Toll fees 3.60 

West Pub. Co. 

10 sets Minnesota R. L 80.00 

2 copies 1905 R. L. and supplement 

to 1909 laws 15.00 

53 copies Minn, laws and 28 Minn. 

codes 310.00 

Less $5.00. 
Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co. 

1 cut glass inkstand 7.75 

1 I. P. ring binder 3.05 

24 letter openers 6.00 

24 bottles paste 6.00 

12 ink erasers 2.50 

1 ink pad 40 

72 lead pencils 3.60 

1 doz. ink erasers 7.20 

6 ink wells 6.00 

3 ruling pens 1.35 

12 rubber rulers 4.20 

10 boxes carbon paper 35.00 

2 stamps with pad 1.10 

Rent for 3 desks 30.00 

Rent for 2 chairs 6.00 

Senate members' mileage 1,998.60 

Frank P. Dufresn© 

Annotating code 15.00 

McGill Warner Co. 

1 paper weight 1-75 

12 document boxes 3.50 

72 pencils 3.00 

4 paper fasteners 6.00 

1 doz. boxes staples 3.60 

3 doz. blotters 3.75 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

Expert to open safe 7.50 

Rent of desk and chairs 36.00 

Rent of desk and chairs 54.00 

McGill Warner Co. 

Records of Farrington-Froshaug elec- 
tion contest $197.50 

2,000 cards 5.00 

12 boxes typewriter paper 18.00 

Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co. 

Rubber stamps 1-00 

1 dater 25 

1 doz. paper knives 8.00 

1 doz. stamp pads 40 

1 doz. bill books 21.00 

1 qt. ink 75 

1 qt. mucilage 65 

72 pencils 2.25 

1 doz. note books 50 

1 doz. note books 1.00 

Wallblom Furniture Co. 

36 boxes shoe blacking 3.60 

3 hair brushes 4.50 

3 combs 2-25 

Rent of 3 desks 30.00 

5 mirrors 18.75 

24 shoe brushes 8.40 

2 carpet sweepers 11.00 

1 case toilet paper 9.75 

6 doz. cakes toilet soap 6.00 

2 feather dusters 2.00 

1 piece cleaning cloth 2.85 

McGill Warner Co. 

3 gross blotters 3.75 

6 letter files 3.00 

6 document boxes 2.00 

3 doz. pen holders 1-55 

6 boxes carbon paper 30.00 

12 boxes typewriter paper 30.00 

1 gross lead pencils 6.50 

6 receipt books 2.40 

3 doz. copying pencils 3.75 

3 doz. point protectors 75 

18 boxes typewriter paper 45.00 

1 gross pencils 6.50 



150 letterhead boxes 37.50 

1 doz. cords 1.50 

Frank E. Wood 

3 gross pens 4.50 

H. H. Fritz 

Trip to training school 14.91 

Electric Blue Print Co. 

Blue prints for reapportionment com- 
mittee 43.94 

Northwestern Elec. Equipment Co. 

Lamp shades 53.12 

F. W. Babcock 

Lettering doors 24.55 

McClain & Gray 

Mdse. for Senate 7.50 

John Saugstad 

Expense of contest 1,794.26 

S. J. Froshaug 

Expense of contest 1,436.50 

John J. Ahmann 

Expense of contest 650.00 

American Linen Supply 

Clean towel service 59.18 

Highland Spring Water Co. 

1,670 gals, water 83.50 

S. D. Works 

Expense election contest 900.00 

James Handlan 

Expense election contest 450.00 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

Typewriter paper, etc 8.55 

Rent on furniture 30.00 

Pioneer Press Co. 

1 doz. copy holders 30.00 

1 gross rubber bands 5.50 

Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co. 

1 gavel 1.25 

Carbon paper 21.00 

Ink 1.50 

1 doz. knife cases 1.00 

3 doz. erasers 3.25 

180 pencils 8.55 

8 M second sheets 6.00 

2 M staples 1.20 

Rent of furniture 12.00 

Pen holders 75 

150 files 45.00 

McGill Warner Co. 

Legal blanks and covers 127.50 

300 "An act" sheets and second.... 37.50 

Pencils, mucilage, etc 3.15 

Rubber bands and staples, etc 32.80 

12 boxes typewriter paper 30.00 

Carbon paper and boxes 12.00 

500 "An act" sheets 35.00 

2 boxes typewriter paper 5.00 

Mileage for Representatives 3,816.85 

Expense of Red Wing investigation. .1,622.88 

F. W. Babcock 

Lettering committee rooms 24.35 

Brown, Treacy & Sperry Co. 

1 M typewriter paper 2.50 

1 file 65 

60 records books 96.00 

2 doz. paper knives 16.00 

2 doz. knives in cases 42.66 

6 typewriter ribbons 6.00 

Ledger and files 2.45 

L. C. Smith Typewriter Co. 

Rentals and covers 7.00 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

Tickets for Roosevelt reception. . . . 7.00 
The Pioneer Co. 

Typewriter paper and ribbons 16.50 

Louis F. Dow Co. 

6 boxes and 6 arches 2.00 

1 gross pencils 9.00 

2 balls twine L50 

1 ledger 5.50 



18 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

H. H. Dunn - A. D. Stephens 

3 days extra signing bills, etc 15.00 Legislative trip •.. 38.36 

O. F. Doyle Some extra salaries $1,220.70 

Drainage investigation 8.88 Drainage investigation 1,547.86 

N. W. Elec. Equipment Co. Witnesses, election contests 988.22 

Lights for committee rooms 32.63 Committee junkets — 

Globes for commitee rooms 47.24 House 1,445.81 

A. A. Christenson Senate 484.13 

Rent of taxicab to bring in absent Rent of typewriters, etc 684.30 

members of Senate 11.00 *Telephone rent and tolls 338.75 

*Twin City and long distance calls were paid for by individual mem- 
bers at the time of talking, none of which are included in this item. 

Chief Clerk Arneson secured rebates on some of the House pur- 
chases amounting to nearly $2,000, which were turned back into the 
treasury. 

3fC «fC 3JS 

INEFFECTUAL INSURGENT PROTESTS. 

When the Kunze resolution, giving the Chief Clerk authority and 
instructions to purchase supplies, was presented to the House, Clinton 
Robinson alone voted against it. He was a new member, with an in- 
stinctive nose for graft. He did not speak upon the Kunze motion, but 
told me afterward that he thought supplies ought to be purchased by a 
committee, with every opportunity for competition, economy and proper 
checking. 

W. A. Campbell was another House member who recognized the op- 
portunity for graft or extravagance in the customary method and on 
January 10th he presented this resolution and forced its adoption: 

"Resolved, that all unpaid bills for supplies purchased or to be purchased by the Chief 
Clerk pursuant to the resolution adopted January 3rd, shall not be paid until audited and 
approved by the Committee on Legislative Expenses. The Committee on Legislative Expenses 
shall meet on the 1st and 15th of each month and as much oftener as necessary during the 
legislative session for the purpose of passing upon and auditing such bills and shall keep a 
public record of the details of all meetings held for that purpose." 

The Committee on Legislative Expenses, thus empowered to check 
and prevent graft or extravagance, consisted of Messrs. Perry, Greene, 
Edwards, J. E. Peterson and Knapp. The first two were old reactionary 
members; the others inexperienced men. I shall make no comment on 
the manner in which this committee met their opportunity to serve the 
people- 
Kerry E. Conley paved the way for publicity in the purchasing of 
supplies through the following amendment to the rules which he offered 
January 10th: 

The Chief Clerk shall require an itemized invoice in duplicate form of all purchases of 
supplies made by him, the original invoice to accompany the order for payment to the State 
Auditor, who shall file the same. 

Mr. Conley's own comment on this and his later resolution, which 
follows, is astonishing. He said: "From time immemorial, it has been 
the custom to purchase large amounts of furniture and fixtures, and 
when the next session came around no trace could be found of it." It 
was to save something for the state that Mr. Conley introduced and 
had adopted this resolution on the last day of the session: 

Whereas, there was a committee appointed during the early part of the session to audit 
all accounts; and 

Whereas, the invoices for large amounts of supplies, office furniture, etc., have just been 
turned in with apparently no check or approval of the committee; and 

Whereas, the purchasing powers of this House have invested the sum of $2,451.00 in office 
furniture and $1,559.50 in office fixtures; 

Resolved, that the committee appointed to check up these accounts be instructed to 
proceed to complete its work and to turn over to the Custodian of the Capitol all items accord- 
ing to the rules of this House. 

Previous to the passage of Mr. Conley's resolution, on March 14th. 
the following was introduced by John O. Rustad. It was blocked tem- 
porarily by George M. Nye, but was adopted a few days later and be- 
came a law of the legislature: 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 19 

Resolved, by the House of Representatives, That it shall be the duty of each officer and 
employee of the House of Representatives, at the close of the present session, to deliver all 
state property and supplies in his or her possession to the Chief Clerk, and it shall be the duty 
of the Chief Clerk to make an inventory of all such property and supplies and deliver the 
same and the inventory thereof to the Custodian of the State Capitol, to be by him kept and 
delivered to the Chief Clerk of the House of the next succeeding legislature. The Chief Clerk 
shall take the Custodian's receipts for such property and supplies in duplicate and file one 
of the same with the Governor of the state. 

Dr. W. T. Stone had in mind the valuable law books carted away 
after each session when he presented this resolution on April 5th: 

Resolved, by the House of Representatives that, beginning with the 38th Session of the 
State Legislature, each member of the House shall be provided with an annotated copy of the 
Revised Laws of 1905, or later compiled statute, by the Chief Clerk of the House, and shall, 
upon receipt of same, sign a voucher, therefor, which shall be filed by the Chief Clerk of the 
House with the Secretary of State. At the end of the session each member shall surrender 
his book to the Secretary of State, whereupon said voucher shall be returned to him. The 
Secretary of State shall safely keep said books for use at subsequent sessions. The Secretary 
of State shall make a list of all vouchers uncalled for, which shall be submitted to the House 
of the next succeeding Legislature and entered on the Journal of the House. 

J. T. Johnson introduced a most important measure to reform these 
conditions. It provided that supplies should be purchased b}*- the Board 
of Control. But plunder is a part of politics and his bill was defeated. 
I regret that there isn't space here to give further credit to Mr. Johnson 
and other insurgents for their efforts to bring about competition, econ- 
omy and conservation in the matter of supplies. 

The phase of it all which seems most deplorable is the spirit of 
plunder which prevailed about the capitol. "The state pays for it; get 
all you can," was apparently the attitude of many members and employ- 
ees- It is significant and shocking that conditions would have been even 
worse had it not been for the vigilance of the insurgents. If not re- 
sponsible, the Speaker of the House at least had the power and the op- 
portunity to remedy the evil. He could have named a Committee on 
Legislative Expenses made up of old members who would have displayed 
experience, patrotism and activity in the discharge of their duties. More 
than that, vouchers were signed by the Speaker, as well as the Chief 
Clerk, which enabled him to have full knowledge of what was happen- 
ing. 

THE THIRD HOUSE. 

Statesmen require assistance in making laws — and playing politics. 
Congressmen, especially the stand-pat kind, experience little difficulty in 
building a machine composed mostly of postmasters. Legislators have 
no such legitimate opportunity to supply places for their campaign work- 
ers, but improvise means of rewarding a horde of petty politicians at 
public expense by having them appointed door-keepers, gallery sergeants, 
clerks, etc., etc., in the legislature. Practically all of these political ap- 
pointments are dependent upon the speakership and are important fac- 
tors in deciding the incumbency of that all-powerful position. 

The elective positions in the House, the legitimacy or necessity of 
which should not be questioned, are: Chief Clerk, Oscar Arneson, whose 
regular salary of $10.00 a day was augmented by $200 for indexing the 
journal and $30.00 for "extra clerk services;" G. O. Hage "and Jerome 
J. Rice, assistant clerks, at a salary of $7.00 a day, with $84.00 cash for 
extra clerk services; Sheldon Crawford and Reuben G. Thoreen, engross- 
ing and enrolling clerks, at $5.00 a day, with $15 and $20.00 for extra 
services; George H- Deans and B. F. Seiz, sergeants-at-arms, at $5.00 
each a day, with $267.50 extra pay voted to each and $131.40 for serving 
subpoenas; W. J. Scanlon and Ole O. Holmen, pastmaster and assist- 
ant, at salaries of $5.00 each per day; and Rev. Moses E. Maxwell, who 
:haplained the performances at a daily stipend of $5.00. David W. Knowl- 
ton was appointed reading clerk at $10.00 a day. T. V. Knatvold was 



20 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

appointed Speaker's clerk at a salary of $10.00 a day and Mary V. Robert- 
son, Speaker's stenographer, at half that salary. 

Claude C. MacKenzie, a son of George MacKenzie, floor leader of 
the administration, landed the best clerkship, that of the Judiciary Com- 
mittee, at a salary of $10 00 a day. Mr. MacKenzie was called away on 
his own legal business for about a week at one time during the session, 
but the Judiciary Committee managed to struggle along, nor did the pay- 
roll profit by his absence. He was assisted by Frank E. Reed at a salary 
of $5.00 a day. 

The Reapportionment Committee proved quite expensive to the 
state. N. T. Moen drew $10.00 a day from January 16th to the end of 
the session as clerk of that committee and Roy H. Currie, a draftsman, 
was placed upon the payroll at $10.00 a day February 1st and stuck 
through to the finish. And there were other expenses. Of course there 
was much drawing of maps and redistricting schemes, but I am not the 
only one who believes that all the work actually necessary could have 
been performed by a $5.00 a day man in a week. 

The cloak room keepers were also a luxury. There were three in 
the House — George E. Byers, Gust Bender and J. B. Conley — at $5.00 a 
day each- They were forced to operate in a little corner where not 
more than one could easily labor at a time. The others acted as re- 
serves. In 1909 Kerry E. Conley introduced a bill to replace these 
cloak room keepers with a locker for each member. Besides being bet- 
ter in every way the change would have saved the state many thousand 
dollars in the course of a decade. But the politicians preferred to keep 
this plunder for their friends. Again at the last session L. Wisniewski 
championed a similar measure, which was defeated in the Senate. 

William Lovely was "sergeant of the reserve gallery;" other gallery 
keepers were James Hunter, Franklin L. Stauffer, Guy Bye, Joseph 
Cousineau, Sr., and Thomas Liddy. Perhaps one of these might have 
been necessary, but there certainly was no excuse for reinforcements, 
yet William J. Pomplun was appointed a gallery keeper on March 28th. 
The House journal states that he was named "in place of F. L. Stauff- 
er." My report from the state treasurer's office shows, however, that 
Mr. Stauffer drew pay until the close of the session. These were all 
$5.00 a day men. 

The sergeants of committee rooms were Alex Herbst, A- J. Reibes- 
tein, Frank L. Waren, Gordon T. Bright and M. A. Giere, five $5.00 a 
day idlers, made so mostly by the unnecessary and unstrenuous nature 
of their occupation. And the door keepers — there were eight of them, 
George J. Schillo, C. W. Borgey, Richard Thomas, Rudolph Paul, Har- 
vey Gordon, Thomas M. Quinn, John C. McLaren, and Albert E. Dorff, 
costing the state $400 every ten days. 

W. J. Brown was a special clerk at $10.00 a day. The $5.00 a day 
clerks were numerous and nifty, including J. M. Peckenpaugh, K. G. 
Oldre, Robert B. Forrest, C. A. Reil, Henry Siemering, John W. Loftus, 
E. B. Dahl, Clarence R. Anderson, John McMillan, C. S. Broton, A. G. 
Rutledge, and S. W. Frasier — setting the state back $600 every ten days. 
With the exception of a special clerk, of honest intentions and equipped 
to draft bills, all the others in this class could be eliminated. The aver- 
age clerk did not work half an hour a day and even then his labor could 
have been performed by some committee member without removing his 
feet from the table. The little that is done by clerks should be added 
to the duties of the stenographers and their number increased accord- 
ingly. Two stenographers would be worth more in actual service than 
a dozen clerks — but not for political purposes. 

About the only department of service that was not overdone was 
that of the stenographers. There were a dozen of these ladies and most 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 21 

of them earned their $5.00 salaries. And a small minority of the seven 
pages, some of them sons of members, were needed. But it can safely 
be said that two-thirds of the entire list of employees are absolutely un- 
necessary. 

In the House, the Committee on Rules provided for the appoint- 
ment of practically all of the employees of that body by the Speaker, 
who bestowed most of the plums upon his supporters in the speakership 
contest. A part of the rule on this subject is as follows: "No employee 
of the House shall receive any pay for any time prior to the time of 
appointment," yet on the last day this resolution was presented by 
Messrs. Frankson, Henion, Hopkins, Converse, Crane, Bouck, Ferguson 
and Kunze, in behalf of that number of clerks: 

Be it Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House be, and he hereby is, instructed to 
draw and deliver to the following named persons warrants for the sums set opposite the 
respective names the same being for the per diem of such persons between the time they 
respectively reported for duty and the time of their appointment, at the rate of five dollars 
per day, viz.: H. R. Soule, $45.00: Leonard Lyman, $50.00; E. B. Dahl, $45.00; J. M. Peckin- 
paugh, $40.00; Charles Reil, $45.00; Guy Bye, $45.00; Joseph Cousineau, $45.00, and Albert 
Dorff, $45.00. 

W. A. Campbell blocked this attempt. He and other insurgents 
saved the state from several similar assaults upon the treasury. 

Andrew Davis originated a measure to completely correct these pa- 
tronage abuses. W. I. Nolan and George H. Mattson joined with him 
as joint authors of the bill, which eliminated about two-thirds of the 
employees and provided proper safeguards for the future. The bill was 
defeated in the Senate. The upper branch could have had no interest in 
it and apparently permitted it to die on general orders, at the request 
of certain representatives who did not dare to go on record against so 
meritorious a measure in the House and yet wanted it killed. The his- 
tory of the Wisniewski locker bill is identically the same. Keep in mind 
this lack of team work between House and Senate. It saved the corpor- 
ations and politicians on numerous critical occasions. 

SENATE PATRONAGE PARASITES 

The presiding and organizing officer of the Senate is the Lieutenant 
Governor, elected by the people. The power of patronage can in no 
way influence his selection. Accordingly, the politicians have taken the 
whole matter into their own hands. It is customary for the Republican 
majority members to caucus and apportion the pelf. This is done be- 
fore the session assembles. After filling the elective positions, on the 
opening day, Senator L. O. Cooke presented the usual "omnibus" patron- 
age resolution, the result of the customary caucus: 

Resolved, That the following named persons he and the same are hereby appointed for the 
session, and at the compensation set opposite their respective names, to- wit: Secretary to 
Lieutenant-Governor, J. S. Arneson, $7.00 per day; Messenger to Lieutenant-Governor, F. C. 
Tuttle, $5.00 per day; Chaplain, Mr. Andrew D. Stowe, $5.00 per day; Second Assistant Secre- 
tary, C. A. Anderson, $7.00 per day; Third Assistant Secretary, E. A. Nelson, $7.00 per day; 
Fourth Assistant Secretary, D. W. Meeker, $7.00 per day; Assistant Enrolling Clerk, W. E. 
Hutchinson, $5.00 per day; Assistant Engrossing Clerk, Wm. E. McGee, $5.00 per day; First 
Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms, A. A. Christianson, $5.00 per day; Second Assistant Sergeant-at- 
Arms, S. E. Fay, $5.00 per day; Committee Clerk, Henry Lokensgaard, $5.00 per day; Janitor 
Senate Chamber, W. H. Lake, $5.00 per day; Assistant Janitor, John H. Dillingham, $5.00 
per day; Postoffice Messenger, Wm. Jones, $5.00 per day; Keeper of Cloak Room, Albert 
Boemer, $5.00 per day; Doorkeeper, Ole Anderson, $5.00 per day; Assistant Doorkeeper, 
M. F. Doty, $5.00 per day; Sergeant-at-Arms of Gallery, N. H. Hanson, $5.00 per day; 
Sergeant-at-Arms of Retiring Room, John Bucknell, $5.00 per day; Sergeant of Committee 
Rooms. Steve Eklund, $5.00 per day; Sergeant of Committee Rooms, Anton Hanson, $5.00 per 
day; File Clerk, O. E. Dieson, $5.00 per day; Assistant File Clerk, Alfred O. Schmidt, $5.00 
per day; Clerk Judiciary Committee, W. H. Hodgman, $10.00 per day; Assistant Clerk 
Judiciary Committe, James D. Doran, $5.00 per day; Committee Clerks, A. H. Frosbaug, 
O. N. Hern, C. E. Johnson, F. A. Wilson, Roy Johnson, C. M. Wilkinson, R. S. Hyers, 
W. W. Williams, D. Donahue, 0. O. Distad, P. H. Simmons, Llye J. Johnson, N. C. Koel, 
Annie Connors, each $5.00 per day; Stenographers, Henry Lemont, Miss K. H. Hanson, Minnie 



22 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

Kallestad, Mrs. W. A. Norred, Annie Fering, Alta Kingsley, Minnie H. Wilson, Elizabeth 
C. Cook, and Louise Christianson, each $5.00 per day. And that the First Assistant Secre- 
tary be paid $3.00 per day, for the session, additional compensation. 

Eight days later, on January 11th, it was discovered that" there were 
still a few politicians to be provided for and Senator J. D. Denegre came 
to the rescue with the following: 

Resolved, That the following 1 named persons be and the same are hereby appointed for 
the session, and at the compensation set opposite their names, to- wit: Assistant Janitor, 
Senate Chamber, Charles Engstrum, $5.00 per day; Henry M. Gallagher, Committee Clerk, 
$5.00 per day; M. D. Fritz, Committee Clerk, $5.00 per day; Andrew J. Rus, Committee Clerk, 
$5.00 per day; C. F. Swanson, Janitor, $5.00 per day, and Spencer Folkedal, Committee Clerk, 
$5.00 per day. 

This resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules, recom- 
mended to pass by that body and adopted by the Senate, with only one 
dissenting vote, that of Senator A. L. Hanson. 

Lieutenant-Governor Gordon was permitted to appoint the seven 
pages of the Senate, presumably because they were not adult politicians 
capable of contributing to the machine. 

In addition to regular salaries, these gratuities or additions to sal- 
aries, were voted by the Senate: 

A. A. Christianson $267.50 Charles Wagner 50.00 

Emma S. Paulson 150.00 John McColl 50.00 

Paul Colburn, page 50.00 Charles Cummings 50.00 

Carl R. Anderson 50.00 James H. Ege • 517.90 

C. F. Swanson 50.00 D. W. Meeker 300.00 

Donald Kulka 50.00 Wm. J. Hardy 117.00 

S. G. Phillips 21.00 S. E. Fay 267.50 

Even the telephone girls, paid regularly by the telephone companies 
which employed them, came in for gratuities, Mollie "Seebick, Sarah Red- 
mond and Lucetta King each being voted $150.00 of the people's money 
to show that the Senate was well-to-do and kindly disposed. 



5? * =K 

There is still plenty of paint and inspiration and landscape, but wc 
5t leave this picture of political piracy and depart to fields of greatei 
iamental importance. 



but we 
must 
fundamental importance. 



CHAPTER II. 
FUNDAMENTAL LEGISLATIVE LAW. 

Monarchial England is making more progress toward democracy 
than is republican America- This is because she has no supreme court 
with higher authority than her law-making body and no written con- 
stitution for the judiciary to interpret. The legislature of this state is, 
in miniature, a reproduction of the national problem in this respect. 
The enemies of the people operate through the rules, which correspond 
in function to the constitution. Yet there is this difference: Nationally, 
the corporations and politicians are at times compelled to interpret from 
or even enact into the fundamental law of the land a spirit" and pur- 
pose which do not exist; legislatively, the special interests and their 
servants encounter no such handicap — they make the rules, their con- 
stitutional authority, in the first instance. 

The Committee on Rules far exceeds in importance any standing 
committee of the House. These five men virtually create all the other 
committees. The rules they report provide for the employees discussed 
in the preceding chapter and regulate the whole course of legislation. 
This committee .is looked upon as the personal committee of the Speak- 
er, and its chairman is regarded as the floor leader of the Speaker's ad- 
ministration, or organization. Speaker Dunn appointed as his commit- 
tee on rules, George A. MacKenzie, of Sibley County, Chairman; Chester 
A. Congdon, of Duluth, Charles R. Fowler, of Minneapolis, C. E. Stone, 
of St. Paul, and W. H. Wescott, of Dakota County. Consider the po- 
litical character and inclinations of these men: 

Mr. MacKenzie was recognized as the representative of the brewery 
interests. I do not know whether or not he was their attorney, and 
his legislative activity in their behalf may have been due to unselfish 
convictions. That is immaterial. The point is that he was considered 
by the insurgents as the special advocate of the liquor forces. 

Mr. Congdon, beyond question, stood for the iron ore interests of 
northern Minnesota. 

Mr. Fowler was an attorney for the Val Blatz Brewing Company 
and his legal firm also represented a number of liability insurance com- 
panies. 

Mr. Stone came to the legislature from the Great Northern Railway 
Company. 

Mr. Wescott was a professional politician and throughout the ses- 
sion was known among his colleagues as the Speaker's "handy man." 
So much for the personnel of the committee. The vital thing is what 
they did. 

Recognizing that most of the evils of legislation are due to the work 
of standing committees, the progressives of the House, always a minor- 
ity, demanded two vital reforms in the regulation of these committees: 
(1) that standing committees should keep a public record of their acts; 
and (2) that there should be a reasonable limit as to the time standing 
committees could keep business pigeon-holed away from the House. 
Both of these demands, in the form of written amendments, were pre- 
sented to the Committee on Rules, but the first was not included in their 
report which was presented to the House for adoption on the third day 
of the session, January Sth. W. I. Nolan, of Minneapolis, one of the 
insurgent leaders, then offered this "publicity" amendment, which was 
in substance what the committee had rejected: 



24 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF . 1911 

"The final action on all bills and resolutions in committee shall be by roll call, and the 
roll call shall be a part of all committee reports, stating the final action taken on all bills and 
resolutions." 

The roll call on this Nolan amendment furnished the first real "line- 
up" of progressives and reactionaries. In my opinion it is one of the 
four supreme tests of whether House members were there to represent 
the people or the special interests. Those who voted "aye" favored let- 
ting the light shine into the committee rooms; those voting "no" pre- 
ferred the politician method of giving the people no opportunity to know 
what transpired behind closed doors. 

Those voting in the affirmative were: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Burnquist, Camp- 
bell, Conley, Crane, Davies, Davis, Edwards, Farley, Fisher, Frankson, Harding, Hauge, 
Hillman, Hoffman, Holmberg, Holten, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, 
Klemer, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J, F. Lee, Lindberg, Lundeen, McMartin, Morton, Nolan, O'Neill, 
Orr, Palmer, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Robinson, Rustad, Sampson, Skartum, 
W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, E. Warner and Whiting — 46. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Aker, And. Anderson, Boothroyd, Borgen, Bouck, 
G. W. Brown, Christie, Clarke, Congdon, Converse, Denzer, R. C. Dunn, Ferguson, Fowler, 
Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Herzberg, Hopkins, Hurley, Jelinek, Keefe, Knapp, Kneeland, Knut- 
Bon, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, McDonald, MacKenzie, Mattson, Mettling, Minette, 
Moriarity, A. Nelson, H. Nelson, Nye, Nygren, O'Brien, Papke, Perry, Peters, O. Peterson, 
Pfaender, Reed, Rice, Robertson, Schuler, Schwartz, Spooner, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, 
Dtecht, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Webb, Wescott, White, Wisniewski, Speaker H. H. Dunn — 62. 

Following the rejection of this amendment there was a storm of 
protest from all parts of the state. The reactionaries became alarmed 
and, on January 12th, reported to the House a modification of the Nolan 
amendment, but without even mentioning Mr. Nolan's name, and recom- 
mended its adoption. It was as follows: 

"62 (a) The final action on all bills and resolutions in committee shall be by roll call 
showing the vote of each member present. 

"(b) A record of the final vote on all bills and resolutions shall be kept by the chairman 
of each committee showing the names of those present and the vote of each member, which 
record as to each bill or resolution, shall be filed for public use by the chairman of the com- 
mittee with tbe Chief Clerk of the House within twenty-four hours after final action on such 
bill or resolution. At the close of the session such reports shall be filed with the Secretary 
of State for public use. Such record shall not be entered in the House Journal except upon 
a majority vote of the House." 

This was adopted by a vote of 104 to 5 on January 19th. Mr. Spoon- 
er and others spoke against it, but voted for it. The five negative votes 
were cast by Borgen, Bouck, L. D. Brown, Clarke and Hurley. Andrew 
Anderson voted "no," but before the result was announced arose, as 
though to change his vote. The journal does not record him as voting 
either way. Such is the history of the progressives' semi-successful 
fight to bring about publicity in committee rooms. Although ignored in 
some cases, the change accomplished a great deal in the direction in- 
tended. 

A WHOLE FAMILY OF WOODCHTJCKS. 

The second reform demanded by the progressives was "conceded," 
and "it was a most marvelous concession. Read it carefully, remember- 
ing that it was intended to prevent the delaying and distorting of bills 
in committee: 

Every bill, other than for appropriations, claims or reapportionment, referred to a stand- 
ing committee shall be reported therefrom within twenty days after its receipt by the com- 
mittee. 

Any such bill not so reported within such period, unless such period is extended by a vote 
of the House, shall, five days after any member gives notice in the House that he requires 
such bill to be reported to the House, unless sooner duly reported, be delivered to the Speaker 
with or without a report of the committee and lie on the table of the House. 

There were no less than five woodchucks in this one concession to 
the reformers. Here is the list: 

Joker No. 1. — The amendment proposed by W. A. Campbell for the 
progressives provided that the rule should apply both to bills and reso- 
lutions. The rules cornmittee omitted the reference to resolutions. 

Joker No- 2. — This wonderful new rule provided for its own viola- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 25 

tion. Instead of stating honestly and specifically that a bill or resolu- 
tion should be reported back within twenty, or twenty-five days, it pro- 
vided that if a bill were not reported back within a given time, then 
any member might demand its return. In other words, if the committee 
did not report the bill and no member asked for its return to the House, 
it remained in the committee indefinitely as under the old order of things. 
And that was the way it worked. It was a clever subterfuge, far too 
clever to be accidental, as the committee claimed when its mask was 
removed. 

Joker No. 3. — If a bill were forced out of a committee under this 
rule, it would come before the House "five days after any member gave 
notice" — the reactionaries would know exactly when it was coming and 
could prepare for it or be absent if it were anything they wished to 
dodge. 

Joker No. 4. — The best parliamentarians held that this "concession" 
destroyed the right of the majority to recall a bill from a committee 
in any other manner than that specifically provided. 

Joker No. 5. — The regular course for a bill coming from a commit- 
tee is for it to go on general orders, the next step toward the statute 
books. This "concession" provided that it should "lie on the table," 
where it had little parliamentary advantage over being in committee. 

The progressives demanded this reform in order that business might 
be kept moving. The reactionaries did not want any "time-limit rule" 
that would work, for they desired to defeat all reform measures by de- 
laying and congesting business at the end of the session. Everyone who 
watched the last legislature knows that this rule was exactly what the 
Rules Committee must have intended it to be — a farcical failure. Under 
it there was delay and disorder and chaos at the close, a condition which 
accomplished the defeat of many a measure of the deepest fundamental 
importance. The session adjourned with final action pending on the state- 
wide primary, the recall, the initiative and referendum, the income tax, 
etc., etc. If there had been even one day more a dozen vital laws might 
have been enacted. Had this rule not been full of jokers, and honestly 
enforced, the entire program of reform measures woud have been reached 
weeks before adjournment. Were it the only purpose of this book to 
give the main reason why the last session proved a cemetery for anti- 
corporation bills, it might well end here with the story of this "con- 
cession," for without this rule and the reactionary rules committee which 
created it no coterie of brewery representatives could have saved their 
masters by guarding the clock at the finish. 

The vicious character of the rules extended in other directions. By 
providing for three times as many standing committees as were neces- 
sary they enabled the Speaker to pack the important ones with reaction- 
aries and sidetrack the progressives upon committees which had little 
to do with legislation. This will be discussed in a later chapter. The 
rules gave the Speaker and his Committee on Rules almost absolute 
control of patronage — a most effective means of building an organization 
and of holding members "in line." Read Rule 35 on this point: 

35. All propositions for appointment of employees of the House other than those pro- 
vided by law shall be referred to the Committee on Rules, and no appointment shall be made 
unless reported favorably by said committee, or its report be overruled by three-fourths vote 
of the whole House, and said committee shall report to the House the amount of compensa- 
tion that shall be paid each of said employees. 

The new rules were reported by the Committee on Rules on the 
third day of the session, read and immediately adopted. They contained 
changes which the progressives desired a little time to consider, but 
when J. A. A. Burnquist made a motion to have them printed in the 
journal and acted upon the following day, it was voted down and the 
rules railroaded through. When once adopted they could not be changed 



26 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

except by a two-thirds vote and the progressives were helpless, unless 
they could bring public opinion to bear upon the administration, as was 
done when the Nolan amendment was carried and the right of a major- 
ity to recall a bill from a committee established. Custom has decreed 
that it is the very extreme of insurgency to vote against the final adop- 
tion of the rules, yet Ernest Lundeen, of Minneapolis, did that, casting 
the only negative vote. 

* * * 

The progressives in the Senate also demanded a time limit rule, and 
a straightforward provision was reported by the Rules Committee of that 
body, as follows: 

70. All Committees, except Finance Committee, to which any bill or resolution has been 
referred, shall return the same to the Senate with or without its recommendation and report 
not later than twenty-five days from the date of reference, unless at the formal request of the 
committee the Senate has granted a definite extension of the time, during 1 which the bill or 
resolution may be held for consideration in committee. 

However, this was not adopted with the other rules, but was re- 
ferred back to the Committee on Rules. In the meantime some influ- 
ence was at work and when the rule was re-reported to the Senate and 
adopted, it was practically the same as the vicious House law and cer- 
tainly accomplished the same purpose. 

* * * 

After it had become apparent that the Rules Committee of the 
House was packed with politicians, Clinton Robinson offered this Reso- 
lution: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Rules be increased by the addition of one member from 
each congressional district as follows: First District, John O. Rustad; Second District, W. A. 
Just; Third District, A. V. Anderson; Fourth District, C. N. Orr; Fifth District, W. A. 
Campbell; Sixth District, J. F. Lee; Seventh District, A. J. Peterson; Eighth District, Andrew 
Davis; Ninth District, H. A. Putnam; and one at large, J. N. Johnson. 

It was referred to the Committee on Rules and later reported for 
"indefinite postponement" by that body, which recommendation was 
sustained by the House without a roll call. Ordinarily committees are 
appointed by the Speaker, and Mr. Robinson was asked why. he had 
named the members in his resolution. "Because I wanted some pro- 
gressives on the committee," he answered. Yet he was not Klemerized. 



CHAPTER III. 
HOW THE HOUSE WAS ORGANIZED. 

"This house as at present organized with its sixty-two standing com- 
mittees is a farce and a burlesque on the rights of the people of this 
great state of Minnesota. * * * Half of the membership are on com- 
mittees that amount to nothing at all. * * * The committees are 
packed in the interest of the special interests and with the intent and 
purpose to defeat good and wholesome legislation." — Representative 
F. L. Klemer. 

Growing out of the Klemer controversy, his colleague and fellow- 
insurgent, Dr. W. T. Stone, introduced a resolution making specific 
charges, and also demanding an impartial investigation into the whole 
matter of special interest domination of the legislature. A part of the 
long preamble was as follows: "The. mover further believes an impar- 
tial investigation will bring to light facts and circumstances sufficient to 
convince impartial members that the election of the Speaker and the 
organization of the committees of this House were due in a large meas- 
ure to the influence of the special interests and for the purpose of fur- 
thering and perpetuating the control of the government of this state by 
the said special interests." 

There are districts in this state where the special interests indicated 
a friendliness toward the candidacy of certain statesmen by sending 
substantial contributions to aid in their election. Some of these checks 
were returned, after being photographed. Others were neither returned 
nor photographed. ' The brewery combine was obviously interested in 
the defeat of Mr. Burnquist for Speaker. I assume that if Mr. Klemer 
and Dr. Stone had been given an impartial investigating committee they 
would have gone into the situation herein suggested. And that ought 
to have been done. But it was not necessary for them to go outside the 
records of the session to prove their charges. 

Twelve reactionary members were so placed upon the most impor- 
tant committees that they practically controlled the conduct of the legis- 
lature. The dozen thus entrusted with this opportunity and power were: 
L. D. Brown, of Little Falls; C. A. Congdon, of Duluth; R. C. Dunn, of 
Princeton; C. R. Fowler, of Minneapolis; John G. Lennon, of Minne- 
apolis; George A. MacKenzie, of Gaylord; Albert Pfaender, of New 
Ulm; L. C. Spooner, of Morris; C. E. Stone, of St. Paul; Leonard Vir- 
tue, of Blooming Prairie; W. H. Wescott, of West St. Paul, and Harri- 
son White, of Luverne. 

First, let me explain how I classified reactionaries and progressives. 
The four supreme tests were: (1) The vote on the Nolan publicity 
amendment to the rules; (2) the roll call killing the Sulerud bill to give 
the people the right to change their own constitution by a majority of 
the votes cast for any amendment; (3) the first vote to advance an honest 
initiative and referendum bill; and (4) the vote censuring Klemer with- 
out a semblance of a trial or hearing on his charges of corruption. The 
vote on a number of progressive measures meant little, because the reac- 
tionary House leaders included some features which they knew the Senate 
would not endorse, and vice versa. The fact that both branches voted, 
for many reforms which a lack of team work, or rather a subtle, skill- 
fully contrived and executed lack of team work, defeated, proves this. 



28 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

The Twelve — Ten of them were Republicans; two, Pfaender and 
Virtue, were Democrats. All of the republicans supported H. H. Dunn 
for Speaker. All of the twelve, excepting L. D. Brown, who did not 
respond to the roll call, voted against the Nolan amendment. All of 
them voted against the Sulerud constitutional change bill. Every one of 
the twelve voted against making the progressive initiative and refer- 
endum bill a special order where it could be acted upon speedily in the 
open with some chance of passage- The entire twelve voted to censure 
Klemer without a hearing. Mr. Pfaender was the only one of the twelve 
to vote against the attempt of the tax committee to kill the tonnage 
tax bill in committee, and he also voted against the measure on its final 
passage. All of them except R. C. Dunn, and Spooner who was absent, 
voted to take away from the majority the right to make a special order 
of a bill, thus giving one-third of the membership the power to defeat 
legislation by delaying action. This might be continued, but I have 
suggested sufficient to show the reactionary inclinations of the twelve. 
The same general basis of judgment was used to determine whether or 
not other members were for the conditions favored by the special in- 
terests. 

The standing committees of which the twelve leading lieutenants 
of Speaker Dunn had absolute control were: (1) The crucial Committee 
on Rules, where they had all five places; (2) The Committee on General 
Legislation, next in importance, where they had nine out of seventeen 
places; and (3) the Committee on Taxes and Tax Laws, where they had 
nine out of seventeen places. They had eight out of twenty-one places 
on Appropriations and six out of fifteen on Temperance. Of the 75 
places on these five most important committees, these twelve, or one- 
tenth of the membership of the House, had 37, or about half of the 
whole committee strength. On these same five committees, the most 
liberal construction of the word "progressive" could not muster more 
than 17 out of the 75, and they were not in control of any one of these 
committees. 

Adding five more, making a list which includes the ten most impor- 
tant committees which the Speaker had to appoint, a comparison shows: 

Places by the " Other Pro- 
Name of Committee Twelve Reactionaries gressives 

Rules 5 

General Legislation 9 7 1 

Taxes and Tax Laws 9 5 3 

Appropriations 8 6 7 

Temperance 6 6 5 

Elections 4 8 5 

Public Health and Pure Food 3 10 

Reapportionment 8 21 6 

Railroads 4 12 3 

Legislative Expenses 4 1 

Total places 56 79 31 

Every informed person knows that one-third of a committee, with 
the harmony of act and inclination which characterizes those carrying 
out "a program," can control. The twelve had more than one-third of 
the total number of places on the ten committees which determined the 
results of the session. They had almost twice as many places on these 
committees as all of the forty-odd progressives put together. On these 
ten committees the ratio of reactionaries to progressives was almost 5 
to 1. 

The Twelve had six of ten chairmanships on these committees. 
They had 37 out of 75 places on the first five committees, while all of 
the Burnquist supporters were given only a total of 11 of these 75. The 
progressives who voted against Dunn for Speaker were given only 20 
of the 166 places on the ten committees of paramount importance. Not 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 29 

one of the four prohibitionists was named on any of these committees. 

Compare the Twelve now with 43 progressives. Messrs. A. V. And- 
erson, J. J. Anderson, Burnquist, Campbell, Conley, Farley, Fisher, 
Harding, J. N. Johnson, Klemer, J. F. Lee, Lundeen, McMartin, Morton, 
Nolan, Rustad, A. J. Peterson, Putnam, Robinson, Sampson, Schwartz, 
W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, and E. Warner — 25 — were not given 
a single place on the ten most important committees; while Messrs. 
Crane, Davies, Davis, Frankson, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, C. E. John- 
son, J. T. Johnson, I. J. Lee, Lindberg, Orr, Palmer, J. E. Peterson, 
Rines, Skartum, Webb and Whiting — 18 — were given only a total of 28 of 
these places. The Twelve each had an average of nearly five places on 
these ten committees: forty-three progressives each an average of a little 
more than half a man on all the ten. 

In these comparisons I have not considered either the Judiciary 
or Tri-County Committees for the reason that Speaker Dunn had little 
to do with them, more than to appoint a chairman, who in each case 
was a reactionary. The Judiciary Committee was composed of all the 
lawyers in the House and the Tri-County Committee of all the members 
from the three big counties, Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis. Adding 
these two to the ten already considered gives the legislature all the 
standing committees that are really necessary or essential to the best 
interests of the people. If the whole membership of the House were 
distributed wisely among twelve committees it would not be possible 
to contrive a condition where a few could control legislation in the 
formative period and dominate the situation throughout the session. 

Sixty-two standing committees affords the Speaker an opportunity 
to pack the few important ones according to the interests he serves and 
use the unimportant ones to sidetrack the progressives. As an example 
of this consider the committee assignments of F. L. Klemer. 

Klemer — Logs and Lumber, Manufactures, Public Buildings, School 
for Defectives, Enrollment. 

The total number of bills referred to all of these committees was 
five, which gave Mr. Klemer an opportunity to consider in committee 
only that number. 

Here is a partial list of the committees which served no necessary 
purpose save that of giving the Speaker an opportunity to pigeonhole the 
progressives where they could do the least harm to the special interests, 
the total number of bills referred to each also being given: Soldiers' 
Home, 5; State Libraries, 5; Printing, 3; Immigration, 3; Manufactures, 
2; Board of Control, 2; Logs and Lumber, 2; State Hospitals, 2; State 
Normal Schools, 3; Local Bills, 1; Public Buildings, 1; State Training 
School, 1; Sleeping Cars, 0; Binding Twine, 0; Horticulture, 0; Prison 
Labor, 0; School for Defectives, 0; School at Owatonna, 0; Enrollment, 
0; Engrossment, 0. 

Continuing the comparison, the records show that the Twelve had 
an opportunity to consider in committee 3,658 bills, or an average of 
more than 300 to each member, while all of the progressives who voted 
for Burnquist for Speaker, with the four prohibitionists, the one socialist 
and the two unvarying insurgent democrats, had an opportunity to con- 
sider in committee only 3,537 bills, or 121 less than the Twelve. The 
partiality of Speaker Dunn toward his own followers, who were with 
few exceptions reactionaries, is illustrated in a general way in the above 
comparison, but more specifically in the respective committee opportuni- 
ties which he gave to Alva Henion, reactionary, and F. L. Klemer, in- 
surgent. Both were new members and equal so far as experience 
counted; in all other respects Mr. Klemer's equipment for public service 
was superior. Mr. Henion's committee assignments enabled him to con- 
sider 205 bills; Mr. Klemer had an opportunity to consider just five 
in committee. 



30 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

All of The Twelve were old members, which naturally gave therii 
preference over new members upon committees. But W. I. Nolan, an 
insurgent of the highest ability and serving his fourth term was not given 
even a chairmanship — an unprecedented thing. Nor were such conspicu- 
ous progressives as J. N. Johnson, Kerry E. Conley, J. A. A. Burnquist. 
H. A. Putnam, John O. Rustad, I. J. Lee, N. J. Holmberg, J. T. John- 
son, Finlay McMartin, C. E. Johnson, and John A. Sampson, all old 
members, placed where they could accomplish results for the people. 

The machinery of legislation in the lower body was given into the 
hands of politicians, unprogressives and representatives of the special 
interests. That interpretation of the situation would only be further 
emphasized if I were to continue the comparisons already indicated in 
this chapter. A select list of reactionaries, about twenty in number, 
were placed upon so many committees that they could not attend half 
the meetings scheduled. On the other hand, an inspection of the House 
chamber at almost any time when the committees were in session showed 
practically all of the insurgents idle so far as committee room work was 
concerned. 

Speaker Dunn proved himself a poor politician by overdoing the 
"packing of committees." A clever reactionary organizer would have 
presented some semblance of fairness in his appointments; but the or- 
ganizing of the 1911 legislature was done apparently upon the theory that 
five reactionaries to one progressive was better than a ratio of three to 
two. The result was reports from these stacked committees so obvi- 
ously crude and unjust that hardly a week passed in which the House 
did not rebuke the organization by overturning some Cannonistic action 
of a committee. Examples of this will come later. 

I have it upon good authority that it was the intention to make the 
committee on General Legislation the "steering committee" of the ad- 
ministration. Therefore its personnel will be interesting at this time. 
Speaker Dunn appointed upon this committee: George H. Mattson, 
chairman; C. R. Fowler, R. C. Dunn, C. A. Congdon, George A. Mac- 
Kenzie, W. D. Washburn, Harrison White, Alva Henion, W. H. Wes- 
cott, E. G. Perry, John P. Nash, C. E. Stone, John G. Lennon, George 
G. Reed, George M. Nye, L. C. Spooner, and Charles W. Bouck. 

Now we are ready to consider the House machine. 



CHAPTER IV. 
MAKING AND MANIPULATING THE MACHINE. 

"The system has been in full swing on other issues concerning the corporations and poli- 
ticians. On Thursday the Robinson resolution calling for an investigation into the campaign 
receipts and expenditures of the state central committees was chloroformed, and interred 
before it had a chance to regain consciousness. The manner in which the administration forces 
rode roughshod over Robinson was a sight to make men and angels weep. First the Com- 
mittee on General Legislation delayed consideration as long as it possibly could and then 
imposed the usual sentence — death by "indefinite postponement." Their report was opposed 
by the fighting insurgent father of the resolution. But shackled and muzzled, he was led to 
the slaughter. As soon as the matter was placed before the House Alex Nelson, of Ottertail 
County, shut off all debate by the cowardly device of moving "the previous question." His 
position was sustained by a majority, which of course prevented Mr. Robinson or any other 
member from setting forth his reasons for asking the inquiry into special interest activity in 
state politics. Then there was a general justification of votes against the investigation on 
the ground that the House had not sufficient evidence to warrant such action. And they voted 
it down. Whereupon there was great rejoicing among the brewers and professional poli- 
ticians." — From News Letter, March 13, 1911. 

On February 7th, Clinton Robinson introduced the resolution re- 
ferred to, calling for a committee to inquire into the campaign contribu- 
tions of the special interests in Minnesota. Back of it were a number of 
progressives outside of the legislature who were prepared to uncover a 
lot of political corruption, if given the machinery to investigate. Some 
members themselves would have been involved and, of course, there was 
a scurrying for cover. Politicians and special interests members joined 
hands to kill the resolution. First, John G. Lennon blocked it by giving 
"notice of debate." The next day Mr. Robinson attempted to force a 
vote upon it, and Mr. Lennon made a substitute motion that it be "in- 
definitely postponed." Then L. C. Spooner averted a roll call by carry- 
ing a motion that it be referred to the Committee on General Legisla- 
tion, which had already become known as "the cemetery." This gave 
the reactionaries more time to muster their forces. 

In spite of repeated protests, the Committee on General Legislation 
kept the resolution buried for more than a month. On March 9th it 
was reported by the committee for "indefinite postponement." Mr. Rob- 
inson made a substitute motion that it be adopted. A number dodged 
the roll call on the resolution, which was as follows, those voting "aye" 
being for the investigation and those voting "no" against it. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Borgen, 
Burnquist, Conley, Crane, Davies, Edwards, Frankson, Harding, Hillman, C. E. Johnson, 
J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lundeen, Minette, Morton, Nolan, 
Nygren, A. J. Peterson, Putnam, Robinson, Rustad, Schuler, Skartum, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, 
and Wisniewski — 31. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Aker, And. Anderson, Boothroyd, Bouck, G. W. 
Brown, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Denzer, R. C. Dunn, Ferguson, Fowler, Fuchs, Hafften, Henion, 
Herzberg, Holmberg, Hopkins, Hurley, Jelinek, Keefe, Klemer, Kneeland, Knutson, Kunze, 
S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, MacKenzie, McMartin, McNeil, Mattson, Mettling, 
A. Nelson, H. Nelson, Nye, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, Papke, Perry, J. E. Peterson, 0. Peterson, 
Reed, Ribenack, Rice, Saggau, Sampson, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Virtue, 
C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, Webb, Wescott, White, Whiting, and Speaker H. H. 
Dunn — 61. 

An entire chapter might be written about this incident. It has a 
place here because it serves to suggest that there were many reactionary 
reasons for a House machine in addition to the main object of defeating 
reform legislation. The means and methods of creating a combination 
through which the politicians control for themselves and the special in- 
terests are interesting. 

The first essential element is what I call "a corporation cabinet." 



32 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

a carefully chosen coterie of the shrewdest politicians whose duty it is 
to make and manipulate the machine. Some members of the cabinet 
in this case were within, some without the legislature. Half of their task 
is accomplished with the election of a satisfactory Speaker who will 
"pack" the important committees as they desire. Without favorable 
rules they are badly handicapped and in constant danger of disruption. 
Assuming that the initial step, the selection of an obedient organizing 
officer, has been accomplished, the system of the "corporation cabinet" 
is about as follows: 

1. The Nucleus — There can be no doubt that a number of members 
owed their election to liquor money and were directly controlled by the 
brewery combine. It is equally obvious that certain representatives 
were the political property of the steel trust. Others were there pri- 
marily to serve the railroad ring, or the public utility companies. All 
such statesmen responded easily to the efforts of the corporation cabi- 
net, it only being necessary to get them to working in a pool. 

2. Chairmanships — This influence brings no small number into the 
combination. It is a most important factor in the selection of the Speak- 
er, and subsequently if his organization is attacked in any way or has a 
program of any kind to carry out those securing good chairmanships 
feel forced to fight with the administration. Some of the representatives 
chiefly responsible for Speaker Dunn's election were rewarded with 
chairmanships as follows: L. C. Spooner, Appropriations; Thomas 
Kneeland, Judiciary; R. C. Dunn, Taxes and Tax Laws; W. F. Kunze, 
Education; C. H. Warner, Public Lands; W. D. Washburn, Railroads. 
These were all county option men, yet stood with the organization 
through practically all of the session. 

3. Patronage — The opportunity to pay political debts through the 
appointment of employees appeals to some and always results in re- 
cruits for the combination. It is claimed that every supporter of Speaker 
Dunn had the naming of at least one member of the third house. John 
Holten refused to vote at the speakership caucus, which may possibly 
be explained by the fact that he had a son who was a candidate for an 
appointive position. The Speaker and his Rules Committee had almost 
absolute authority over employees, which might have been used as a 
club to compel members to adhere religiously to the program. 

4. Appropriations — Log-rolling, or trading in appropriations, is the 
chief instrument through which the cabinet constructs a controlling com- 
bination. It adds more to the machine than almost all other influences. 
As a rule, every member goes to St- Paul with the idea of obtaining 
some special thing for his district. The result is simply this: the reac- 
tionaries get possession of the organization in general and the commit- 
tee on Appropriations in particular; then they are in a position to say 
to representatives desiring local appropriations, "You stand with us and 
we will pass your bills." The result is two-fold: (1) The country 
member secures something special for his community and thus becomes 
a big man at home by being small and "useful" in St. Paul; and (2) 
there are appropriations for the people to pay aggregating about $16,000,- 
000.00, which doubles the tax levy of the state. 

I shall recite one complete story to illustrate this practice. There 
might be a score of similar tales, but this one is typical and should 
suffice. P. L. Converse of Becker County wanted a fish hatchery for 
the City of Detroit. That was the beginning and the end of it. 

Mr. Converse introduced H. F. No. 93, appropriating money for a 
fish hatchery at Detroit, on January 17th. The bill was referred to the 
Game and Fish Committee. In due time it was reported from that com- 
mittee with a favorable recommendation and placed upon general orders. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 33 

On February 14th the bill was sent to the Appropriations Committee, 
'retaining its place on general orders." There it was pigeon-holed for 
a month and seven days while the work of disciplining and making sure 
of its author went on. Mr. Converse had voted for Dunn for Speaker 
and against the Nolan publicity amendment — satisfactory reactionary 
conduct. But at this period of the session he was wavering. He seemed 
uncertain on county option. The reactionaries also discovered that he 
had pledged his people to vote for a tonnage tax. But far worse than 
that, after voting with the majority against making a special order of the 
progressive initiative and referendum bill. Mr. Converse seconded a mo- 
tion to reconsider the vote and voted with the insurgents on that vital 
question. So the pigeon-hole held its prey and it looked bad for the 
Detroit fish hatchery. 

The Appropriations Committee kept his pet bill, while its sponsor 
fretted and fumed. Finally, according to the story he told to me, Mr. 
Converse went to the chairman of the sub-committee which was holding 
his bill and reiterated his demand that action be taken upon it. That 
was the day before the first test vote on the tonnage tax and it was 
proposed that if he would vote against that bill something would be done 
for the fish hatchery. "But I promised Bjorge" — began Mr. Converse. 
"To hell with the Norwegian," responded the statesman on the lid. Mr. 
Converse voted for the tonnage tax and his bill remained in the Appro-* 
priations Committee. Then there came a change. 

About the middle of March a letter ready to sign, with one of Mr. 
Converse's envelopes, was found upon the desk of Dr. W. T. Stone 
where it had seemingly been dropped during a conversation with his col- 
league. Mr. Converse has denied either writing or mailing this letter 
and, I understand, also threatened a libel suit if I published it in this 
book. It was as follows: 

March 17th, 1911. 
"Mr. D. L. Durkin, 
Fr&zee, Minn. 
"Dear Sir: (This first part of the letter related to an appointment the writer was trying 
to secure for the one addressed, and is omitted. Then the letter goes on) — 

"I have been working hard every day to get the Fish Hatchery for Detroit. I have been 
voting with the gang right along and if I don't succeed in getting it, it will be because when 
the time comes they will go back on their promise to me. It was reported out of the Fish and 
Game Committee immediately and is now in the Appropriations Committee, and the boys 
promised me yesterday to report it out at once. 

"Yours very truly," 

Subsequent events tend to substantiate this letter, even if it never 
was written or sent by Mr. Converse. A few days later, the Klemer 
controversy arrived and Converse certainly "voted with the gang." On 
March 23rd the Appropriations Committee raised the embargo on his 
bill and it passed the House by the following vote five days later: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Aker, And. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Booth- 
royd, Borgen, Bouck, L. D. Brown, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Clark, Converse, Davies, 
Davis, Denzer, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Henion, Herzberg, 
Hillman, Hoffman, Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, Hurley, Jelinek, C. E. Johnson, Just, Keefe, 
Kelly, Knapp, Kneeland, Kunze, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lundeen, Lydiard, MacKenzie, 
McMartin, McNeil, Mattson, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Morton, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, 
Papke, Peters, 0. Peterson, Ribenack, Rice, Robertson, Robinson, Saggau, Sampson, Schuler, 
Schwartz, C. E. Stone, Sulerud, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, Voxland, C. H. 
Warner, Washburn, Wescott, White, Wisniewski, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 78. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Conley, J. N. Johnson, Klemer, I. J. Lee, J. F. 
Lee, A. Nelson, Nygren, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Rustad, W. T. Stone, 
E. Warner and Whiting — 15. 

When the result was announced a number of cabinet officials and 
even some ordinary reactionaries looked over at Mr. Converse with 
knowing nods and smiles, as much as to say: "Didn't we tell you it 
would pass?" 

5. Ambitions — Some statesmen cannot be reached by the reaction- 
aries except through an appeal to their ambitions. Many a man will 



34 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

yield to that influence, when none other would move him. George H. 
Mattson, although he voted for Burnquist, acted as one of Dunn's com- 
missioners to settle the speakership contest, and during the early part of 
the session stood quite consistently with the organization. It was freely 
suggested about the capitol that he had been brought into the reaction- 
ary camp through his ambition to be Secretary of State. Whatever 
the reason, it should be said that Mr. Mattson reversed himself and 
fought with the insurgents during the closing weeks of the session. I 
know of members of both branches who were taken up onto a high 
mountain and given an enchanting view of the political universe which 
lay open before them, if they would adopt the "safe and easy" course. 
Senators Lende and Boyle, brilliant young men. were two of these. 
Both bade Satan to get behind them. Others were not so patriotic, or 
so strong. 

6- Flattery — There are always some who like to be told through 
attentions of various kinds that they are great men. The opportunity 
to make speeches makes a strong appeal to weak men's vanity. It is 
my belief that Knute Knutson was one of the members amenable to 
this subtle influence. 

7. The Corporation Press — Akin to the influence of flattery was the 
work of reporters in this respect. Members who would "play the game" 
with the reactionaries, even if their ability did not entitle them to any 
distinction, were praised and paraded before the people as great states- 
men, while the insurgents were mentioned only when it was necessary 
and often in a manner to belittle their ability and discredit their inten- 
tions. 

8. Good Fellowship — "You are hereby requested to be at the Ryan 
Hotel on Thursday evening, March 2nd, at 7:30 P. M. to join with the 
Representative Hurley in a journey to the Yoerg Brewery to be enter- 
tained to a Dutch Lunch. Yours for a good time, J. J. Hurley." This 
typical invitation to a "brewery banquet" was addressed to a democratic 
member who instead of attending gave me the letter. 

On the last night before the big battle on the initiative and refer- 
endum bills, Albert Pfaender, bell wether of the democrats, had his 
crowd in one end of Carling's, while W. H. Wescott, rounder for the re- 
actionary republicans, was holding forth with his followers in another 
part of the same cafe. Presumably it was figured, and rightly, too, 
the "good time" would not be forgotten when the voting took place. 
While organizing the democrats for this gladsome event, Mr. Pfaen- 
der called Clinton Robinson aside and invited him, explaining that he 
had been made the floor leader for his party and to show his apprecia- 
tion of this honor he was giving a dinner to the boys at Carling's that 
evening. "What is Wescott showing his appreciation for?" asked Mr. 
Robinson, who further intimated his belief that the banquet had a deeper 
significance. Messrs. Farley and Robinson were two of the twenty-six 
House democrats who did not attend. 

Free theater tickets represent another phase of the good fellow- 
ship influence. Understanding human nature and realizing that the ac- 
ceptance of such a favor would make the recipient easier of control, some 
of the reactionary leaders made it possible for country members to se- 
cure passes to the theaters. Probably some of them did not know that 
the theaters had been "held up" for these tickets. This is how it hap- 
pened at the last session, and it was the orthodox method: On January 
16th, Charles W. Bouck introduced H. F. No 71, "A bill prohibiting 
theatrical performances on the sabbath," which was sent to "the ceme- 
tery," the Committee on General Legislation. Of course the bill d: : ed; 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 



35 



Bijou Opera House 

MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 



Pass *W 



not good sundays 
Da$R holidays 



Account legislature 




but the free ticket tank was tap- 
ped and it was possible for those 
controlling the pass output to 
place unsuspecting members un- 
der obligations to them. 

Desiring some evidence I in- 
duced an insurgent friend to pro- 
cure some theatre tickets, which 
he did from a Minneapolis mem- 
ber. One was photographed and 
looked like this: 

9. Bribery — I believe that the buying and selling of votes for so 
much cold cash has been reduced to the minimum; but there are many 
indirect ways of accomplishing the same result. Option schemes are 
sometimes used, as are also other methods almost too subtle for com- 
prehension and so clever as to place both briber and bribee beyond the 
reach of the law. Poker has been a favorite means of bribery and during 
recent sessions there were three different "legislative games" patronized 
regularly by members. It worked like this: If the representative of 
some special interest or some "held-up" institution desired to get into 
the good graces of a certain Senator or Representative, it somehow 
happened that both would meet at the same poker table. Assuming 
that $100 would do the required business, during the night the outsider 
seeking legislative favors would lose that amount and the legislator 
would win it. Both understood why one lost and the other won, yet 
technically and legally it was not bribery. 

10. Blackmail — Wine and women have enabled the cabinet to con- 
trol many a member. In times past, when all other influences had 
failed, good men have been led into paths of intemperance and while in- 
toxicated directed into the "red light district." Following that "orders" 
were rarely disobeyed. 

At the last session a tragic thing resulted from this weapon of drink. 
It is a sad story, but every citizen in the state should know it. One of 
the staunchest insurgents v/as J. J. Anderson, of Alexandria. He was an 
excellent legislator, with the deepest convictions and most patriotic pur- 
poses. Clean, courageous and immovably opposed to special privilege in 
every form, he took his stand with the progressives and remained there 
to the end- Earlier in his life there was a period when he used intoxi- 
cants freely; but he conquered the old habit and for years before coming 
to the legislature had been master of his appetite. The brewery mem- 
bers knew of this weakness (they always possess each man's history 
from childhood up), and for honesty John Anderson the session became 
more than a battle between special interests and the people. The 
enemies of good government wanted to control his conduct and with 
diabolical subtlety they labored to revive the old love of liquor. Think 
of this man's struggle! The idea of drink, drink, drink, was kept con- 
stantly before him for weeks. Finally the persistence of his persecutors 
prevailed. They induced him merely to taste. That was enough, for the 
flood gates of appetite gave way completely to the pushing, piled up, 
torrent of dozens of daily temptations and he fell before it. For a week 
he drank, drank, drank, and soon after adjournment, he died. The "sys- 
tem" had added murder to its other crimes. 



Battling against all of these machine influences, always outnum- 
bered, but acting under the wisest and most patriotic leadership I have 
ever seen, were this band of forty-three progressives, occasionally rein- 



36 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

forced by a few others who wavered between the two elements: J. J. 
Anderson, J. A. A. Burnquist, Wm. A. Campbell, Kerry F. Conley, Ralph 

E. Crane, Jos. Davies, Andrew Davis, W. A. Fisher, Thomas Frank- 
son, W. A. Harding, N. J. Holmberg, John Holten, C. E. Johnson, J. N. 
Johnson, J. T. Johnson, F. L. Klemer, Iver J. Lee, J. F. Lee. R. J. Lind- 
berg, Ernest Lundeen, Finlay McMartin, W. I. Nolan, Charles N. Orr, 

F. L. Palmer, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, H. A. Putnam, Henry 
Rines, John O. Rustad, John A. Sampson, K. G. Skartum, W. T. Stone, 
E. Warner, Henry P. Webb, and E- F. Whiting — 35 republicans; Clinton 
Robinson, F. L. Farley, and Martin Schwartz — 3 democrats; A. V. 
Anderson, Rufus P. Norton, C. L. Sulerud, and George H. Voxland — 4 
prohibitionists; and N. S. Hillman, socialist. 



CHAPTER V. 
KLEMERITIS AND STONE BRUISES. 

Senatorial courtesy and tory tradition have decreed that it is unpar- 
liamentary for a member of any legislative body to tell the truth con- 
cerning his colleagues. Accordingly, when F. L. Klemer, of Faribault, 
charged that the committees of the House were "packed for the special 
interests," he created a sensation unprecedented and unparalleled in 
the annals of Minnesota law-making. 

The ''Klemer incident," with its antecedent conditions of corruption, 
had a most appropriate background — the Sulerud bill granting to the 
people the right to change their own constitution by a majority of the 
votes cast on any amendment. At present it requires a majority of all 
the votes cast at the election to adopt any constitutional amendment. 
The law which the Sulerud bill sought to change in the interest of the 
people was passed in 1897 through the influence and at the instigation 
of the brewers. W. W. Dunn, attorney and legislative agent of the 
Hamm Brewing Company and law-making representative in general of 
the brewery combine, was at that time a member of the House (he is 
now a state senator), and he introduced and pushed through the legis- 
lature the provision which Sulerud and the insurgents were trying to 
amend. By requiring a majority of all the votes of an election, it was 
made practically impossible ever to change the constitution. This safe- 
guarded the brewers and all the other special interests, because most of 
the vital fundamental reforms such as the initiative and referendum, the 
recall, and woman suffrage, could come only through constitutional 
amendments. That is why the vote on the Sulerud bill is one of the 
best tests of the entire session. The only vote upon this measure re- 
sulted as follows: 

For the Sulerud Bill Giving the People a Legitimate Chance to Change Their Own Consti- 
tution: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Campbell, Christie, Conley, Converse, Crane, Farley, 
Frankson, Harding, Hillman, Holten, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, Klemer, I. J. Lee, 
Lindberg, Lundeen, McNeil, Morton, A. Nelson, Nolan, O'Neill, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, 
Putnam, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, Sampson, Schwartz, Skartum, Sulerud, Voxland, and 
E. Warner — 35. 

Against the Sulerud bill: Aker, And. Anderson, Boothroyd, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, 
L. D. Brown, Clarke, Congdon, Davies, Davis, Denzer, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Fer- 
guson, Fowler, Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Henion, Herzberg, Hoffman, Holmberg, Hopkins, 
Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Knapp, Kneeland, Knutson, Kunze, J. F. Lee S. N. Lee, 
Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, MacDonald, MacKenzie, McMartin, Mattson, Mettling, Minette, 
Moriarity, H. Nelson, Nye, Nygren, O'Brien, Orr, Palmer, Papke, Perry, Peters, 0. Peterson, 
Pfaender, Reed, Ribenack, Rice, Rines, Saggau, Schuler, Spooner, C. E. Stone W. T. Stone, 
Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Washburn, Webb, Wescott, White, Wis- 
niewski, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 77. 

Mr. Klemer made his sensational charges on March 22nd when the 
Judiciary Committee was astraddle this Sulerud bill and slowly strang- 
ling it into insensibility. The committee had reported the bill for "in- 
definite postponement" and it was upon Sulerud's substitute motion that 
the bill be advanced to general orders that the test vote was taken. 
The administration forces had pummelled almost the last expiring gasp 
from the helpless measure when Mr. Klemer, mild and unarmored, en- 
tered the arena. John G. Lennon had just reuttered that convenient 
sentiment, always and forever the refuge of the reactionary — "stand by 



38 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

the committee; we must uphold the report of the committee." Then 
Mr. Klemer arose and in a soft, gentle, voice reminded him and the 
House that the committees were packed for the special interests. The 
howl that went up proved that his charges were true. If unfounded and 
"spoken only in the heat of debate," they would have been jokingly cast 
aside — which would have been an excellent way for the reactionaries. 
But Klemer had touched a tender spot- They were guilty. 

There was another reason for their unrestrained fury. Mr. Klemer 
is a slender gentleman and very, very meek. His face is kindly and 
his voice exceedingly sweet and tender in all its tones. That was why 
the reactionaries blundered. Up to that time Klemer had stood consist- 
ently with the insurgents, but had said little. He was mild and it seemed 
safe, perfectly safe, for the administration machine to proclaim their 
political purity at his expense. Others had made statements more "un- 
parliamentary" than his. W. I. Nolan, of Minneapolis, had asserted that 
the brewers were busy as bees in the present legislature. Special in- 
terest members will stand for almost any accusation rather than that 
they are subject to the unscrupulous brewery combine. But they knew 
that Mr. Nolan was experienced and forceful and fearless. It was dif- 
ferent with Mr. Klemer. He did not look loaded, so the bulldozing 
brigade proceeded to make an example of him. 

A number of machine members simply could not restrain their 
"righteous indignation," and with a display of voices and fists and teeth 
intended to induce the mild-mannered Mr. Klemer to retire through the 
keyhole, they demanded that he apologize. Next, Speaker H. H. Dunn 
hied himself into the blustering business and threatened physical restitu- 
tion for the insult. Mr. Klemer, still meek and mild, arose to reply — 
and, of course, to apologize. But he didn't. The blustering had been 
overdone. Instead, he reiterated his charges. Whereupon the bluffing 
began again and R. C. Dunn moved the appointment of a committee of 
three to inquire into the Klemer charges. Speaker Dunn appointed R. C. 
Dunn, L. C. Spooner, and Albert Pfaender. 

The following morning this specially packed investigating commit- 
tee reported in part as follows: 

"We find that the language used was not only highly improper and grossly unparlia- 
mentary, hut also that it constituted a grave and serious reflection upon the honor and 
integrity of the Honorable Speaker of this House and upon the entire membership of this 
House, and we recommend that the said member be required forthwith to apologize to the 
Honorable Speaker of this House and to the members of this House in unconditional language 
and that in addition thereto he be required forthwith to specifically retract the charges made 
and each and every thereof, or that in default thereof, he be censured therefor by a vote of 
this House." 

Instead of apologizing, Mr. Klemer made this statement: 

"Mr. Speaker: In my remarks yesterday on the floor of this House, I said that the com- 
mittees of this House were packed in the interests of the special interests. I simply said 
what I believed to be true from what I have learned since my election; I am not the only 
person in this state who entertains this belief. I am simply voicing the sentiments of a large 
proportion of the general public. A great deal of indignation has been expressed on the floor 
of this House on account of my remarks, and I have been asked to make a public apology in 
order to exonerate the Speaker and his appointees. I wish to say frankly that anything I 
might say at this time would not help to change public sentiment or add any honor to any 
member of this body. This matter has been given wide publication in the public press and 
will be discussed generally throughout the state. 

"I am willing to apologize for what I have said if, after a thorough and impartial inves- 
tigation by this House it shall appear that my convictions and the convictions of the public 
are not well founded. I therefore propose, Mr. Speaker, that a committee of seven members 
be appointed, of which I shall be allowed to name three members and the Speaker three and 
the six members so appointed be authorized to name the seventh member, for the purpose of 
investigating the charges that I have made, and that such committee be given full power 
to subpoena witnesses and compel the production of books and papers bearing on this question, 
and I beg leave to express the wish that it may conclusively appear that this House has been 
organized in the interests of the people of this state and not packed for the special interests. 
Until such time, I respectfully request that my apology be deferred." 

Next, Mr. Klemer further surprised and completely routed the re- 
actionaries by offering the resolution which follows. At this point oc- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 39 

curred the most unparliamentary incident of the whole controversy, when 
Speaker Dunn sneeringly referred to the Klemer resolution as being 
unfit for consideration by any parliamentary body. And the Speaker 
was saved from presenting it to the House by Mr. Spooner's motion for 
a recess. The reactionaries sought safety from the meek, mild little 
man from Faribault in adjournment. His resolution was as follows: 

Be it Resolved, by the House of Representatives, that a committee of seven be named, 
three members of said committee to be named by the mover of this resolution, and three mem- 
bers of such committee to be appointed by the Speaker, and that the six members so appointed 
be authorized to name the seventh member of said committee; that the committee so named 
be constituted a committee of this House for the purpose of investigating the charges made by 
me yesterday, namely, "That this House and its committees have been packed in the intei - - 
ests of the special interests," and that such committee be given full powers to subpoena and 
swear witnesses, to compel the production of books and papers, and that such committee be 
required to report back to the House all the testimony and proceedings in the premises. 

Mr. Klemer had put them in a desperate dilemma. I believe that the 
reactionaries reasoned like this: If we give Klemer an impartial com- 
mittee, appointed partly by himself, he will prove his charges; so we 
can't do that. But if we attempt to discipline him without the hearing 
he demands, if will be so obviously unfair that the people will not stand 
for the injustice. Yet the reactionaries risked the latter. The next day, 
March 24th, they attempted a vote of censure against Klemer. But they 
could muster only 68 votes, whereas they needed 80 to do the deed at 
that time under a suspension of the rules. The vote was as follows: 

To Censure Klemer Without a Hearing: Aker, And. Anderson, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. 
Brown, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Denzer, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Ferguson, Fowler, Fuchs, Greene, 
Hafften, Hauge, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe, 
Kelly, Knapp, Kneeland, Kunze, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, MacKenzie, McDonald, 
McNeil, Mettling, Moriarity, H. Nelson, Nye, O'Brien, O'Neill, Orr, Papke, Perry, Peters, 0. 
Peterson, Pfaender, Ribenack, Rice, Robertson, Saggau, Schuler, Schwartz, Spooner C. E. 
Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, 
Wescott, White, Whiting, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 68. 

For Klemer: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, 
Conley, Crane, Davies, Davis, Farley, Frankson, Harding, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, C. E. 
Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Klemer, Knutson, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, 
Lundeen, McMartin, Mattson, Minette, Morton, A. Nelson, Nolan, Nygren, Palmer, A. J. 
Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robinson, Rustad, Sampson, Skartum, W. T. Stone, 
Sulerud, and Wisniewski — 44. 

The reactionaries rested and thought it over until March 27th. They 
realized that something would have to be done, and the unequal fight 
was resumed — I say unequal because the machine had the majority and 
the inclination to use the "steam roller." Mr. Pfaender had read into 
the resolution of censure and the records a long statement which had 
been prepared for Mr. Klemer to sign. At this point Mr. Klemer made 
the following apology for "unparliamentary" language but refused to 
retract the truth of his statement: 

. "Mr. Speaker: In my remarks before this House last Wednesday I believe that my 
language was unparliamentary, and I hereby wish to offer an apology to the Speaker and the 
members of this House in so far as my language was unparliamentary." 

Still ignoring his resolution demanding an impartial investigation, 
not even having made it a part of the records, the House reactionaries 
censured Mr. Klemer by the following vote: 

Those Who Voted to Censure Klemer Were: Aker, And. Anderson, Boothroyd, Borgen, 
Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Congdon, Converse, Denzer, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, 
Ferguson, Fowler, Fuchs, Greene, -Hafften, Hauge, Herzberg, Hillman, Hoffman, Hopkins, 
Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Kelly, Knapp, Kneeland, Kunze, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, 
McDonald, MacKenzie, McNeil, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Nash. H. Nelson, Nye, O'Brien, 
O'Neill, Orr, Papke, Perry, Peters, Pfaender, Ribenack, Rice, Robertson, Saggau, Schuler, 
Spooner, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Wescott, and 
White— 66. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Burnquist, 
Campbell, Christie, Conley, Crane, Davies, Davis, Edwards, Farley, Frankson, Harding, 
Holmberg, Holten, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Knutson, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, 
Lindberg, Lundeen, McMartin, Mattson, Morton, A. Nelson, Nolan, Nygren, Palmer, A. J. 
Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robinson, Rustad, Skartum, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, 
E. Warner, Webb, and Wisniewski — 42. 



40 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

Then Mr. Klemer reintroduced his resolution for an investigation 
and moved its adoption. In the turmoil which followed, Speaker Dunn, 
who was on the floor of the House, suddenly moved that Mr. Klemer 
and Dr. W. T. Stone be ordered before the bar of the House to specify 
which committees had been "packed" and by which members. Dr. Stone 
was thus honored because in the debate he had expressed the opinion 
that Klemer had only told the truth. J. N. Johnson offered an amend- 
ment to the motion of Speaker Dunn that they be given until the morn- 
ing of March 29th to prepare their charges in writing. But the reac- 
tionaries did not want specific charges in writing and voted down the 
Johnson amendment, 66 to 40, as follows: 

To Give Klemer and Stone Time To Prepare Their Charges: A. V. Anderson, J. J. An- 
derson, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Conley, Crane, Davies, Edwards, Farley, Ferguson, 
Frankson, Harding, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. 
Johnson, Klemer, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, Lundeen, McMartin, Mattson, Morton, Nolan, 
Orr, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robinson, Rustad, Skartum, Sulerud, 
E. Warner, and Webb — 40. 

For The Steam Roller Method: Aker, And. Anderson, Boothroyd, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. 
Brown, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Congdon, Converse, Denzer, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Fowler, 
Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Herzberg, Hoffman, Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Knapp, Knee- 
land, Knutson, Kunze, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, McDonald, MacKenzie, McNeil, 
Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Nash,, A. Nelson, H. Nelson, Nye, Nygren, O'Brien, O'Neill, 
Palmer, Papke, Perry, Peters, Pfaender, Ribenaek, Robertson, Saggau, Schuler, Spooner, 
C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Wescott, White, 
Wisniewski, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 66. 

Speaker Dunn's motion then carried and Mr. Klemer and Dr. Stone 
were ordered before the bar of the House. An attempt was made to 
heckle and embarrass them, but both refused to make specific charges, 
without being given time to prepare them in writing. 

Following that, Speaker H. H. Dunn was ill for several days, John 
G. Lennon being elected Speaker pro tern, and there were no further 
incidents or developments in the controversy until April 4th. Then Dr. 
Stone made specific charges, and more, too, in a resolution in part as 
follows: 

Whereas, On the 27th day of March, 1911, F. L. Klemer, a member of this House, was 
censured for using unparliamentary language and for making certain charges against the 
Speaker and the organization of this House, which appear more fully In the record of the 
journal, reference to which is hereby made; and 

Whereas, Upon the same day, upon a motion made by the Speaker of this House and 
carried by the vote of said Speaker and other members against whom the charges had been 
made, in violation of the rules of this House and contrary to all parliamentary practice, 
said F. L. Klemer and W. T. Stone, members of this House, were called to the bar of the 
House and a demand made for an immediate specification of the individuals and the committees 
upon which is based the belief that "Committees are packed in the interest of the interests;" 
and 

Whereas, The F. L. Klemer and W. T. Stone before the bar of the House, each requested 
additional time in which to formulate a proper statement of the basis of these charges, which 
request was preemptorily refused by the House; and 

Whereas, It appears from the Journal of the House and the records of the proceedings of 
the present session that 12 members control the important committees and through them the 
less important; and 

Whereas, Said W. T. Stone proposes to show by the records and journal of this House and 
by other testimony that the most important legislation that has come before this legislature, 
including the bills on the initiative, referendum, recall, corrupt practice act, and direct 
primary have been controlled and killed by the committees above named. That these com- 
mittees are not only packed but jointly packed, there is no lack of proof. Members of this 
House have boasted that they are able to hold up any bill they see fit and are able to kill 
any legislation proposed. This has been done time and again; and 

Whereas, The charges for which F. L. Klemer and W. T. Stone were brought before the 
bar of this House cannot in fairness be pronounced untrue without the most ample investiga- 
tion for the reason that it is common knowledge throughout the state and country that there 
is a well defined political faction existing in both parties not only within the State of Minne- 
sota, but within every state in the Union, and In the National Government, known as "Stand- 
patters" or "Reactionaries." That a considerable number of this faction have been elected 
through the influence of the corporations and individuals enjoying special privileges. That 
the position and aim of this faction in the government of the different states and in the 
National Government is to prevent any legislation that will increase and further government 
by the people, or restrict special privileges. That in the State of Minnesota there is a well 
known combination of corporations of this character including the railroads, the breweries, 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 41 

and liquor Interests, the street railway companies of the three large cities, the D. S. Steel 
Company and the Medical Trust, with other combinations and interests; and 

Whereas, the mover of these resolutions sincerely believes that an impartial investigation 
will show that at the last election the corporations and interests above mentioned and known 
as the special interests contributed large sums of money to the State Central Committee of 
the Republican party, of which Ex-Senator E. E. Smith was chairman, for the purpose, 
among other things, of electing as many members as possible of this House favorable to the 
said special interests; and 

Whereas, The mover further believes an impartial investigation will bring to light facta 
and circumstances sufficient to convince impartial members that the electon of the Speaker 
and the organization of the committees of this House were due in a large measure to the 
influence of the special interests and for the purpose of furthering and perpetuating the con- 
trol of the government of this State by the said special interests above mentioned; and 

Whereas, The Legislature of the State of Minnesota is the only body in the State that 
has full power and authority to order an investigation that is public and that can properly 
lay the facts in x-elation to the control of this State Government by said interests before the 
people; now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, by the House of Representatives of the State of Minnesota, that a committee 
of seven be constituted from the members of this House, three of whom to be selected by the 
mover of this resolution, three to be selected by the Speaker and the six so named to choose 
a seventh member, for the purpose of investigating the matters herein set forth. That said 
committee is given full power and authority to subpoena witnesses, compel the production of 
books and papers, to take testimony under oath, concerning the funds used by the State 
Central Committees of both the Republican and Democratic parties, during the last campaign 
in the election of members of this Legislature. That it be further empowered and directed 
to investigate the nomination and election of the Speaker of this House, the appointment 
of the committees of said House and the organization of the committees and further authorized 
and directed to hold public sessions and to permit the mover of this resolution to be repre- 
sented before the committee by attorneys to be selected by him without cost to the State, 
who shall be allowed to examine witnesses and to designate such witnesses as they desii*e 
to be called. That said committee is further requested and directed to keep a stenographle 
report of the testimony taken before them and to report the same back to this House with 
such recommendations as to them may seem proper. 

Neither the Klemer nor Stone resolutions demanding impartial in- 
vestigations was ever acted upon, and the legislature adjourned without 
having in any way met the issue of corruption raised by these resolu- 
tions. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE SPEAKERSHIP CONTEST. 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives should be judged: 
(1) by the character and political program of his supporters; (2) by 
his attitude toward political plunder as that element is represented in 
patronage and supplies; (3) by his Committee on Rules and the funda- 
mental legislative laws which are made to govern the session; and (4) by 
his organization of the House. Some of these avenues of judgment have 
been approached in preceding chapters. The Klemer-Stone clash with 
the reactionary organization also served to emphasize the importance of 
the speakership and to prepare you for the story of the contest for that 
position. Before beginning that recital let me present one concrete 
incident bearing upon the subject, which was thus discussed in a news 
letter April 8th: 

"Were you watching the lower House of the Legislature last Wednesday? A most 
interesting and significant thing happened. First, let me offer a few explanations and intro- 
duce a few characters. 

"Previously the Senate had passed a bill extending the primary to the nomination of 
state officers. The House reactionaries did not intend that this bill should become a law. 
Accordingly it was sent to the Elections Committee where it was to be held indefinitely. 
The Elections Committee had a reactionary chairman and a reactionary majority, wbich was 
a good and sufficient guarantee to the special interests and professional politicians that this 
primary bill would not be reported out in time for its passage. In order to understand the 
situation you must know that business had become so congested in the House as to render 
the assassination of any measure safe and easy. That is the modern method — the one Con- 
gress employed to kill the non-partisan tariff commission. At that time there were so many 
bills on general orders and the calendar that there was not the least possibility of any 
fundamental reform being reached unless it was advanced out of its regular order. A 
reactionary ruler and reactionary rules were at hand to see that no important progressive 
measure was given precedence. A reactionary one-third, under the Cannonistic conditions 
which prevailed, could delay and defeat any and all reforms, and this desire for death 
included a number of measures besides the primary. 

"Next consider a vastly different sort of measure. Minneapolis has a liquor license 
zone. It limits the territory in which saloons can legally exist. Two large hotels — the 
Dyckman and the Radisson— are outside this zone. A bill was introduced to make an 
exception of these two hotels and permit them to dispose of intoxicants. The people of 
Minneapolis were violently opposed to the granting of this special privilege, which amounts 
to an extension of their patrol limits. Hence it can readily be seen that this particular bill 
must have had substantial impetus, personal and otherwise, to make it move under such 
conditions. 

"Now meet the characters in the play. Speaker H. H. Dunn was ill and unable to act 
his part. His understudy, the speaker pro-tem, was John G. Lennon. Mr. Lennon is a 
reactionary and an exponent of the modern method — congestion and obstruction. He held 
that a majority had not the power to advance a measure at a critical time. This speaker 
pro-tem was opposed to the primary, and progressive ideas generally. On the other hand, 
he was author of the hotel license bill and entrusted with the responsibility of passing 
it through the House. I next present a group of progressives, naming only two, N. J. 
Holmberg, of Renville, and Henry Rines, of Mora. Between forty and fifty others might 
be included in the list of those who carried on the almost hopeless fight for fundamental 
reforms. But Messrs. Rines and Holmberg acted the stellar parts on this occasion. 

"Let us assume that this happened before the session started that morning: Mr. Holm- 
berg sought the speaker pro-tem and informed him that the progressives were determined 
to unlock the death grasp of the Elections Committee upon the throat of the primary bill 
and bring that measure before the House where it could be acted upon in the open. Still 
assuming, the speaker pro-tem sought to discourage this insurgency by informing the ex- 
ponent of progress tbat the Chair would hold that it took a two-thirds vote to recall a bill 
from a committee and make it a special order. Of course, Mr. Holmberg was sorry and to 
emphasize his grief probably threatened to connect the incident with the Klemer-Stone 
charges of special interest control of the organization. Whereupon the speaker pro-tem's 
voice became lower and more oily, and he made this proposition to the progressive leader: 
If you and a few of your followers will vote for my hotel bill, I'll let the primary bill 
be advanced in this way — when we reach motious and resolutions in the order of business, 
I will find an excuse to vacate the chair and will call upon any one you name to preside.. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 43 

Vhile I am out jou can make your motion and your man will rule that it takes only a 
ajority vote to make a special order of the bill. Mr. Holmberg accepted in considerably 
ess than a second and Mr. Rines, another dependable progressive, was selected to preside 
uring the brief, but epochical period during which Mr. Lennon was summoned from the 
hamber. 

"The rest is simple and comparatively unimportant. Mr. Lennon vacated the chair, 
ccording to contract. Mr. Rines was called upon to preside. Next Mr. Holmberg moved 
hat the primary bill be recalled from the Elections Committee and made a special order 
or April 12th. A reactionary raised the point of order that it would require eighty votes 
o carry the motion. *Acting Speaker Rines ruled that a majority could do whatever they 
leased with the bill. That settled the question and the reactionaries, after being defeated, 
lambered aboard the band wagon. All present, excepting Greene, Hoffman, Lydiard, H. 
Jelson, O'Brien, and C. E. Stone, voted with the progressives. 

"Do you comprehend what all this means? The fate of the primary election bill de- 
ended absolutely and alone upon the man in the chair. It should not require very many 
more expensive lessons in politics like the present session to convince people of the para- 
lount importance of the speakership." 

* * * 

The result of the elections made the legislative situation look threat- 
ning to the politicians and their masters. When the battle of ballots 
vas over it was apparent that the brewery combine had won a safe 
najority against county option, but there was a general demand for the 
nitiative and referendum, the recall, extension of the primary and other 
rogressive measures, all of which menaced the political supremacy of 
he brewers and associated special interests. Their only safeguard lay 
n a reactionary organization of the House — which meant the election of 
safe" Speaker. 

J. A. A. Burnquist, of St. Paul, a progressive with an excellent legis- 

ative record, was the first to announce his candidacy for the speakership, 

he public being informed on September 3rd, 1910, that he was an 

spirant for the position. The belief is general that the reactionaries 

ad agreed upon their candidate, H. H. Dunn, of Albert Lea, long before 

his time. But he was not publicly in the field until all indications 

ointed to the success of Mr. Burnquist. It was probably a part of the 

ame to keep Mr. Dunn in the background and thus encourage other 

progressives to enter the race and divide the Burnquist strength, which 

was the way the insurgents were finally defeated. 

As the crisis of the contest approached, the only candidates were 
[. A. A. Burnquist and H. H. Dunn, progressive and reactionary, re- 
spectively. Mr. Burnquist seemed certain of success. He had been 
given repeated assurances of support from several of the Hennepin 
county delegation and was generally the choice of county option mem- 
bers from all sections of the state, especially the Seventh and Ninth 
congressional districts. Mr. Dunn was favored openly by reactionary 
republicans like John G. Lennon and others of the political character of 
MacKenzie and Wescott. There is evidence also that he was the choice 
of reactionary state officials and "alumni coaches." Nor can it be dis- 
puted that political agents of the brewers were active in his behalf. 

Through strategy, spoils and misrepresentation, the supporters of 
Mr. Dunn succeeded in overcoming the handicap of the earlier situation, 
and defeated the progressive candidate. This is how it was done. 

1. Dividing the Progressives. — The reactionaries played the old, old 
game of bringing other candidates into the field and scattering the 
strength of Mr. Burnquist, thus creating dissension and delay until such 
time as they could bring enough recruits into their camp to win. This 
had to be done in the Seventh and Ninth districts where the pro- 
gressives were strongest. At the proper time for their purposes, J. T. 
Johnson, of Fergus Falls, began to be "mentioned" as a speakership 



♦Speaker Dunn would probably have ruled, as did Mr. Rines, that a majority could 
make a special order of a bill, which does not affect my point, that of the presiding- 
officer's power to control legislation. 



44 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

candidate. Upon Mr. Spooner's invitation, Mr. Johnson went to Morris 
for a conference, which gave further impetus to his candidacy. But 
events in this direction soon traveled too fast for the reactionaries. 
From their standpoint two dangers developed out of the Johnson candi- 
dacy: (1) it grew in the Ninth district to such an extent that there was 
a remote possibiltiy that he might win; and (2) Mr. Johnson was a bona 
fide progressive who would hardly consent to having his following 
"delivered" to the enemy. 

Neither of these dangers appeared to apply to Mr. Spooner, so he 
became the candidate who ultimately accomplished the "dividing" which 
defeated the progressives. The Seventh congressional district caucussed 
at Willmar on November 28th and those present adopted a resolution 
inviting Mr. Spooner to be a candidate, but supporting Mr. Burnquist 
in case Mr. Spooner did not enter the race. Most of the Twin City 
papers published the misleading information that the Willmar meeting 
had unanimously indorsed Mr. Spooner for Speaker. Following this, 
and influenced no doubt by the misrepresentation of what actually was 
done by the Seventh district, the Ninth congressional district caucussed 
at Crookston November 30th and indorsed Mr. Spooner. 

The day previous, November 29th 7 the Fourth Congressional Dis- 
trict caucussed on the speakership at the Merchants Hotel in St. Paul, 
all of the delegation being present excepting C. E. Stone. Mr. Burnquist 
was endorsed by a vote of six to two, Messrs. Perry and Greene oppos- 
ing the endorsement. Almost immediately the brewery interests in 
Ramsey county became busy and Messrs. Perry, Fuchs and Jelinek 
signed a call for another meeting of the Ramsey delegation the next day, 
at which a steering committee was appointed and a resolution adopted 
which practically rescinded the previous action in behalf of Burnquist. 
A St. Paul business man overheard a conversation in a St. Paul brewery 
in which it was stated that "it took us three hours" to get one of the men 
to change from Burnquist to their candidate. When the Fourth district 
caucussed again, Burnquist had only three votes. 

At a meeting of the Northern Development Association in Brainerd. 
December 1st and 2nd, attended largely by legislators, it was intended 
to settle the speakership contest. Mr. Spooner had developed his full 
strength which, of course, was insufficient for him to win. It had 
seemingly served the "dividing" purpose and all that remained was the 
"getting them together" process of the Dunn leaders. 

There was an attempt to rally the insurgents but the mischief had 
been accomplished and the combination of alleged progressives had a 
sufficient number ready for "delivery" to elect the reactionary candidate. 
On December 5th the Seventh Congressional district held a second 
caucus at Granite Falls, and nine out of eleven, either in person or by 
proxy, adopted these resolutions: 

"We, the undersigned, members elect of the Seventh Congressional District, assembled 
at Granite Falls, December 5th, 1910, adopt the following resolution: 

Whereas a majority of the members elect of said district had previously in caucus in 
said district, held at Willmar, November 28th, 1910, promised their vote and support to Mr. 
J. A. A. Burnquist, of St. Paul, for Speaker of the next House; and, 

Whereas at said caucus a large number of said members who had so pledged themselves 
were absent; and, 

Whereas, at said caucus a resolution was passed inviting Mr. L. C. Spooner to become 
a candidate for Speaker, and to support said Mr. Burnquist in the event that Mr. Spooner 
would not become a candidate; and, 

Whereas the members elect of this district who were absent at said caucus at Willmar 
refused to concur in said action taken at said caucus held at Willmar; and, 

Whereas they have come to the conclusion that said Mr. Spooner cannot receive the 
nomination; 

Therefore, Be it Now Resolved, That we unanimously vote to rescind the action, at 
the Willmar caucus and to pledge ourselves to vote for and support to the end Mr. J. A. A. 
Burnquist." ■ » 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 45 

2. Boarding the Band Wagon. — Despite this action, which was 
known to them, on the same evening the Hennepin county delegation met 

md indorsed Mr. Dunn. At that meeting it was represented to the 
Minneapolis members that Mr. Dunn had the unanimous support of the 
First, Second and Third Congressional Districts and was therefore cer- 
tain of election. The following day, when the Dunn leaders were trying 
to carry a caucus of the First district, which at the time of the Minne- 
apolis meeting stood only six out of eleven for Dunn, they argued that 
the action of Hennepin county made his election sure and that the band 
wagon was both comfortable and commodious. Nor did Mr. Dunn ever 
have the unanimous support of either the Second or Third districts. The 
Spooner candidacy paved the way, and the clever manipulation of mis- 
representations as to the real status of the contest, together with the 
endorsement of Hennepin county at the critical time, completed the 
stampede to Dunn which cost the state all that has been suggested in 
preceding chapters. 

April 22nd, after the final adjournment of the legislature, the Satur- 
day Lunch Club of Minneapolis, devoted a meeting, attended by 150 of 
its members, to a review of the records of the Hennepin county delega- 
tion. This militant reform organization had taken an active interest in 
the legislative elections and was largely responsible for the successful 
candidacy of more than a majority of the Minneapolis house members. 
On this occasion Mr. S. R. Child, Chairman of the Executive Committee 
of the Club, spoke on the subject of the speakership, in part, as follows: 
"The Saturday Lunch Club had no set legislative program. The 
only principles enumerated were those as a general basis of selecting 
candidates for the legislature and were the following: 

"1. A candidate should be a man of strong character, with a record for honorable deal- 
ings, with convictions on matters of public policy, and capable of maintaining his position 
with force and efficiency. 

"2. He should show a favorable attitude toward county option and be opposed to any 
extension of the patrol limits of the City of Minneapolis. 

"3. He should show a disposition to reform the rules of the legislative body. 

"4. He should have a higher regard for people than for property and for community 
interests than for private interests. 

"5. He should show a favorable attitude towards the initiative and referendum." 

"I would strongly advise that in the next campaign we add a sixth 
principle, or pledge, as follows: 

"We recognize that in the state legislature there is a party representing the special in- 
terests whose supreme effort is to select the speaker, thus controlling patronage, committee 
assignments and to a great extent influencing legislation. To this party we are unalterably 
opposed. Will you pledge yourself if elected, not to surrender yourself upon the question of 
the organization to that party?" 

Continuing, Mr. Child said: "This Club endorsed as progressive 
Kunze, Palmer, Fowler, Fisher, Washburn, Kneeland, Lundeen, Camp- 
bell and Nolan. It strongly opposed Lennon, Nash, Lydiard and Nye as 
reactionaries on their record. Those four reactionary members were 
for Dunn from the start, while the nine progressives were presumed to 
be for some progressive member. That these nine should have yielded 
to the four was another case of the lion and the lamb lying down to- 
gether, but wonderful to relate — 'the lion inside the lamb'." 

Then followed a clear cut recital of how the Hennepin county "pro- 
gressives" had been stampeded for Dunn and what each had received 
from the organization, presumably in consideration of their support, and 
in this connection Mr. Child pointed out that Messrs. Nolan and Lun- 
deen, who refused to climb aboard the band wagon and voted for Burn- 
quist, were the only Minneapolis republicans who were not awarded with 
chairmanships. 

3. Patronage and Chairmanships. — It is conceded by the keenest 
politcal observers that Mr. Burnquist could have won the Speakership if 



46 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

he had made the usual promises; but he refused to barter away a single 
piece of plunder or to be bound by a single "concession" in reference 
to the organization. On the other hand assurances were given to those 
supporting Dunn that they would be "cared for" and it is asserted on 
good authority that every member who voted for Mr. Dunn was given 
the appointment of at least one employee. W. H. Wescott, the profes- 
sional politician who was most active in the Speakership fight, did most 
of the "promising," perhaps far in excess of his authority or ability to 
deliver, but it had the desired effect and undoubtedly influenced enough 
members to decide the contest. As has been shown in the chapter on the 
House organization, the best committee chairmanships were bestowed 
upon Dunn's supporters, Spooner, Kneeland, R. C. Dunn, Wescott, Mac- 
Kenzie, Congdon, Washburn, Perry and L. D. Brown getting the choicest 
plums. 

* * * 

Mr. Burnquist was criticised for continuing the fight to the beginning 
of the session. The advocates of "harmony" urged him to withdraw 
when it became apparent that his strength had been successfully "divid- 
ed." But he refused, and no more patriotic thing was ever done. He 
knew that if he eliminated himself it would mean either Dunn or 
Spooner, both reactionary, so he kept up the fight for progressive 
principles. 

The republican caucus of House members, which finally settled the 
contest, was held on the evening before the opening of the session. 
The followers of both Dunn and Burnquist held meetings previous to the 
caucus and each selected three commissioners authorized to make final 
arrangements. Mr. Dunn's commissioners were L. C. Spooner, R. C. 
Dunn and Geo. H. Mattson, although the latter voted for Burnquist in 
the caucus. Mr. Burnquist's commissioners were W. I. Nolan, Andrew 
Davis and Kerry E. Conley. 

At the republican caucus held in the House Chamber at 8 o'clock 
p. m., January 2nd, H. H. Dunn was nominated for Speaker by L. C. 
Spooner and J. A. A. Burnquist by W. I. Nolan. Mr. Dunn's nomina- 
tion was seconded by Messrs. MacKenzie, Fowler and Hopkins. Messrs. 
J. N. Johnson and Ernest Lundeen seconded the nomination of Mr. 
Burnquist. 

The vote of the caucus was as follows: 

For Dunn — Aker, Andrew Anderson, Bocthroyd, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. 
Brown, Campbell, Congdon, Christie, Converse, Crane, Denzer, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Ed- 
wards, Ferguson, Fisher, Fowler, Frankson, Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Hauge, Healy, Henion, 
Hoffman, Hopkins, Jelinek, Knapp, Kneeland, Kunze, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, 
MacKenzie, McNeil, Nash, A. Nelson, H. Nelson, Nye, Palmer, Papke, Perry, O. Peterson, 
Reed, Rice, Spooner, C. E. Stone, C. H. Warner, Washburn, Wescott, White and H. H. 
Dunn — 55. 

For Burnquist — J. J. Anderson, Burnquist, Conley, Davis, Harding, Holmberg, C. E. 
Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Klemer, Knutson, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, 
Lundeen, McMartin, Mattson, Nolan, O'Neill, Orr, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, 
Rines, Robertson, Rustad, Sampson, E. Warner, and Webb — 29. 

John Holten, although present at the caucus, asked to be excused 
from voting. Joseph Davies, K. G. Skartum. W. T. Stone and E. F. 
Whiting, Burnquist supporters, did not arrive in time to attend the 
caucus. 

Among those voting for Mr. Dunn, W. A. Campbell, Ralph Crane, 
W. A. Fisher, Thos. Frankson and F. L. Palmer opposed the reactionary 
machine through all the session and did excellent work with the insur- 
gents. Of those voting for Mr. Burnquist, Knute Knutson, conspicu- 
ously, and Donald Robertson, at times, stood with the reactionaries. 

* * * 

Although Mr. Burnquist should have controlled the caucus of the 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 47 

Republican party, which was the majority and, according to precedent, 
the organizing party, yet I do not believe that even then it would have 
been possible for him to be elected Speaker. The incumbency of that 
position meant too much to the brewery interests for them ever to con- 
sent to the seating of a progressive of his uncompromising character. 
I am convinced that if Mr. Burnquist had been able to control the votes 
of all the county option republicans in the caucus, which would have giv- 
en him a majority of that party, the reactionary republicans, would have 
bolted and joined with the anti-county option democrats, electing either 
Dunn or some democrat like Pfaender. If an unprecedented "bolt" of 
that kind had been necessary, judging members by their records through 
the session, the result would have been about as follows: 

For Dunn or Pfaender — Republicans, 43; democrats, 23; total, 66, or 
a majority of 5. 

For Burnquist — Republicans, 46; prohibitionists, 4; democrats, 3; 
socialist, 1; total, 54. 

But nothing of that revolutionary nature was necessary, and the 
triumph of Mr. Dunn in the republican caucus left undisturbed the 
"party solidarity" when the formal vote was taken on the opening day. 
Mr. Dunn received the total republican vote, except that of Alex McNeil 
who was detained at home by quarantine, and the 26 democrats voted 
for Albert Pfaender. The four prohibitionists voted for C. L. Sulerud. 
N. S. Hillman, the lone socialist, could not with modesty nominate and 
support himself, so voted with the majority. 



CHAPTER VII. 

GORDON AND THE OLD GUARD. 

At the time of the Klemer excitement in the House some one sug- 
gested that the Senate committees also were "packed" and Lieutenant- 
Governor Gordon is reported as answering: "They are packed — with the 
best men in the Senate — and I did it all myself." That was quite gener- 
ally true. For the first time in a decade, the most important committees 
were given into the hands of progressives and the remnants of the old 
guard machine were placed in the less consequential positions. The 
upper body was organized in the interest of the people, an advantage 
which it took the reactionary majority two-thirds of the session to over- 
come. 

The nine most important committees, Rules, General Legislation, 
Elections, Finance, Temperance, Taxes, Reapportionment, Railroads, and 
Public Health had 127 places and the ratio of progressives and reaction- 
aries on these nine was 73 to 54. The best chairmanships went to 
progressives like Gunderson, Sundberg, Haycraft, V. L. Johnson, Bed- 
ford, Hackney, Boyle, Lende, and Dwinnell. 

The appointment of Carl Wallace, supposedly progressive, as chair- 
man of the committee on Taxes and Tax Laws was probably what de- 
feated the income tax amendment to the federal constitution, as that 
bill was pigeon-holed in the committee until too late for it to be acted 
upon in the Senate. 

But by far the worst committee of the Senate was the Judiciary. 
The Lieutenant-Governor had nothing to do with the personnel of this 
committee more than to name its chairman, F. E. Putnam, of Blue 
Earth. Senator Putnam appointed as his sub-committee on Constitutional 
Law, Messrs. Dunn, Wilson, Gunderson, Rockne and Duxbury. This 
body was "headed by the attorney of the Hamm Brewing Company, who 
thus had an opportunity to block any and all reforms through consti- 
tutional amendments. The bills on the initiative and referendum were all 
referred to this sub-committee which contained only one real progressive, 
Senator Gunderson, and pigeon-holed until the very end of the session. 

The Senate had no committee on Legislative Expenses, whereas it 
needed several. 



CHAPTER VIII. 
THE FIGHT FOR DIRECT LEGISLATION. 

"Direct Legislation consists of the Initiative, Referendum and Recall. It is in direct 
accord with our theory of government. It leads to efficient and just application of law, 
gives a businesslike administration of the affairs of state, city and town; increases economy, 
promptness and efficiency in doing the business of the people and for all alike with no 
favor or graft for anybody. It helps government for the people and not that condition 
where the people seem to be created for the government. It helps to cut out the boodlers 
and so assist the politicians to be good. 

"The only opponents of Direct Legislation are those who seek to exploit the people, 
&iose seeking special favors through legislation. 

"Direct Legislation requires a constitutional amendment providing that while the legis- 
lative power remains the same as it now is, the people reserve to themselves the power to 
propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact and reject the same at the 
polls, independent of the legislature. This power reserved by the people is called the 'Initi- 
ative' and the 'Referendum' that is, the right of the people to initiate and to reject legis- 
lation. In states where the Initiative is In practice, it requires a certain per cent of the 
legal voters (usually eight per cent) to propose any measure by petition and every such 
petition must include the full text of the measure so proposed. 

"The second power which Direct Legislation seeks to restore to the people is that of 
the "Referendum," the right of the people to pass upon, to ratify or reject any law that is 
passed by the legislature. The 'Referendum' is authorized after a certain per cent of the 
Legal voters have petitioned (usually five per cent), and the people vote upon the law. 

"Under the 'Recall' any public officer may be called upon to resign by the filing of a 
petition signed by a certain per cent of the legal voters who participated in the last pre- 
«eding election in the official's election district. (The percentage is usually twenty-five 
per cent.) The petition must set forth the reasons for the recall and if the officer does 
not resign in five days after the petition is properly filed, a special election must be held 
within twenty days at which the voters of the district determine whether the official is to 
be 'Recalled.' 

"The 'Initiative, Referendum and Recall' seek to maintain the rights and liberties of 
the people and the power and majesty of the government as against the enemies of both. 
These measures give the people direct veto power upon undesirable laws; permit them to 
propose legislation and to retire inefficient or corrupt officers." — Dr. W. T. Stone, Repre- 
sentative, Hubbard County. 

THE BEST TEST ON THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 

Andrew Anderson, A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, Burnquist, Campbell, 
Christie, Conley. Crane, Davies, Davis, Farley, Ferguson, Frankson, Harding, Hillman, Holm- 
berg, Holten, Hopkins, C. B. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Kleiner, Kneeland, K nut- 
eon, * I. J. Lee, J. F Lee, Lindberg, Lundeen, McMartin, Mattson, Morton, H. Nelson. Nolan, 
O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robinson, Rustad, 
Sampson, Sk'artum, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, E. Warner, Washburn, and Webb — 51 

voted, on February 21st, to make the progressive Initiative and Referendum bill a special 

erder where it had some show of passage. 

Aker, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Congdon, Converse, Denzer, 
R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Fowler, Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Hauge, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, 
Hoffman, Hurley, Jeljnek, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Knapp, Kur.ze, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Ly- 
diard, McDonald, MacKenzie, McNeil, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, A. Nelson, Nye, Nygren, 
O'Brien, Papke, Perry, Peters, O. Peterson, Pfaender. Reed, Ribenack, Rice, Robertson, Sag- 
gau, Schuler, Schwartz, Spooner. C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, 
C. H. Warner, Wescott, White, Wisniewski, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 65 voted against 
advancing an honest initiative and Referendum bill. 

* * * 

S. A. Stockwell, one of Minneapolis' most useful citizens, was for- 
merly a State Senator. When in the Senate Chamber, early in January, 
he was greeted by Mr. Blank, of a well known printing firm, who 
inquired why he was there. 

"I am interested in direct legislation," answered Stockwell. 

"By that you mean the initiative and referendum?" 

"Yes, and the recall," said Stockwell. 



50 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

"They have the initiative and referendum in South Dakota, and the 
ballot is several feet long?" ventured Mr. Blank. 

"Yes, but in Oregon the ballot is more like the page of a newspaper," 
said Stockwell. 

"I know," returned Mr. Blank, "we are printing some samples of 
both of them." 

"Who is having them printed?" asked Stockwell. 

"Zollman," was the answer. 

From which Mr. Stockwell rightly inferred that the brewers were 
busy. Mr. Zollman is attorney for the Minnesota Liquor Dealers Asso- 
ciation. Obviously the brewery combine was at that early date arming 
its legislative agents with arguments with which to oppose the pro- 
gressives in their battles for the initiative, referendum and recall. With 
those brewery printed documents as evidence, the professional politi- 
cians were to hold up to legislators "the spectre of expense and the plea 
of impracticability." Why were the brewers and associated special inter- 
ests concerned above all else in the defeat of direct legislation? 

In a national sense, the combined property power in politics is repre- 
sented by three great groups: (1) the transportation trust; (2) the 
industrial corporations, like Standard Oil; and (3) the public utility 
companies. All of these were opposed to the enactment of a bona fide 
initiative and referendum law by the Minnesota Legislature, because this 
state is a part of the whole federal field in which they harvest a monthly 
crop of special privilege through their control of politics and politicians. 
Direct legislation would restore government to the people and serve to 
re-establish equality of industrial and political opportunities. In this 
state the "system" is composed of five elements: (1) the steel trust; 
(2) the railroad companies; (3) a number of "tramp" corporations, like 
the Twin City Rapid Transit Co.; (4) the liquor interests; and (5) scores 
of professional politicians. For reasons that are obvious this state 
machine influenced the situation sufficiently to make necessary this 
unpleasant recital of the story. 

Eight direct legislation bills were introduced in the House — No. 13 
by L. C. Spooner, No. 17 by W. A. Campbell, No. 24 by J. N. Johnson, 
No. 35 by F. L. Kelly, No. 47 by N. S. Hillman, No. 101 by Albert 
Pfaender, No. 191 by W. T. Stone and No. 285 by M. J. Sullivan. The 
number of bills presented was not so much an evidence of the popu- 
larity of the idea as it was of the system at work. With that condition 
it was easier for the reactionaries to bring about controversy and dis- 
cord among the various authors of these bills. To dissipate the pro- 
gressive strength is always the initial manoeuvre of the amalgamated 
special interests led by the brewers. Of these authors Messrs. Spooner, 
Pfaender, and Kelly voted against the initiative and referendum in the 
1909 session. The Pfaender bill provided that 35 per cent should be 
required to initiate laws, which made the measure practically worthless 
and unusable. It was the opinion of leading progressives that the 
spurious Pfaender bill was presented for the main purpose of defeating 
an honest, effective initiative and referendum measure. 

All of these initiative and referendum bills were referred to the 
Committee on Elections, excepting the Pfaender bill, which for some 
reason not known to me was first referred to the Committee on General 
Legislation, but later sent to the same committee as the others. If this 
all-important Committee on Elections had been picked by the brewers 
and acted under their direction it could not have been more accommodat- 
ing to the arch enemies of direct legislation. This committee held all 
the initiative and referendum bills away from the House until February 
21st, when the entire eight were dumped back into the House, without 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 51 

recommendations of any kind, with the Pfaender "subterfuge" at the 
head of the list. 

The progressives among the authors of these bills had agreed to 
unite upon H. F. No. 17, the Campbell measure, and to attempt to make 
it a "special order" where it could be acted upon speedily and out in 
the open. The program of the brewery members and their dissimulat- 
ing assistants was to place the bills upon general orders where it would 
be possible to contrive delay after delay and prevent a final vote until 
too near the end of the session for any bill to become a law. According- 
ly, when the reports of the elections committee came in on that mem- 
orable morning, with the Pfaender bill in the lead, Mr. Pfaender prompt- 
ly had it placed upon general orders, whereas if he had been honestly 
and intelligently interested in having it become a law, it seems that he 
would at least have attempted to advance it to the special order stage. 
The progressives' measure, H. F. No. 17, came fifth in the list and when 
it was reached, Mr. Campbell moved that it be made a special order 
for the following week. The roll call on that motion separated the 
real friends and the real enemies of direct legislation better than any 
subsequent vote. That is the roll call given in the beginning of this 
chapter. Three days later, when Mr. Pfaender was absent, there was a 
second and successful attempt to advance the Campbell bill. On mo- 
tion of Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Converse, the previous vote was 
reconsidered and H. F. No. 17 made a special order for March 9th by 
the following vote: 

To Advance H. F. No. 17. — A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, Burnquist, Camp- 
bell, Christie, Conley, Converse, Crane, Davies, Davis, Diessner, Edwards, Farley, Ferguson, 
Frankson, Harding, Hauge, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. 
Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Keefe, Klemer, Kneeland, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, 
Lundeen, McMartin, Mattson, Morton, A. Nelson, Nolan, Nygren, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, 
A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robinson, Rustad, Schwartz, Skartum, W. 
T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, E. Warner, Webb, Whiting, and Wisniewski — 57. 

Against the Special Order. — Aker, Andrew Anderson, Borgen, Bouek, G. W. Brown, L. D. 
Brown, Clarke, Denzer, R. C. Dunn, Fowler, Fuchs, Greene, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, Hoff- 
man, Just, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, McDonald, MacKenzie, McNeil, Mottling, 
Minotte, Moriariry, Nash, H. Nelson, Nye, O'Brien, Perry, Peters, O. Peterson, Reed, Ribon- 
ack, Rice, Robertson, Saggau, Schuler, Spooner, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Untiedt, Utecht, Vir- 
tue, C. H. Warner, Wescott, White, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 50. 

Meanwhile, a new progressive bill had been prepared and substi- 
tuted for H. F. No. 17. This was H. F. No. 681. And Mr. Pfaender 
had added his bill, PI. F. No. 101, later replaced by his redrafted bill, 
H. F. No. 718, to the special order for March 9th. # The Sullivan bill 
was left upon general orders; all the others were disposed of in some 
way, which left only the Campbell and Pfaender measures for the big 
battle, at the time of the special order. 

The brewers fashioned the fight from inception to finish. Their 
lobbiests, in and out of the legislature, made and manipulated the com- 
bination that finally yielded the sixty-two votes against the people. A 
few were "fooled" into taking the position that they did. But the brew- 
ery machine was built, and I have never seen a more compact and per- 
fectly operating organization. Not once during the two days' struggle 
did the politicians make a mistake or lose control of the combination. 

When the battle began at eleven o'clock H. F. No. 681 was a good 
bill, one of the best that could be drawn on the subject. Through five 
hours of speeches and attempted amendments the measure remained 
practically the same. And in that connection occurred a legislative anom- 
aly that I never expect to see equalled. The progressives tried to make 
the bill worse by amendments. The brewery leaders successfully op- 
posed every important change for the worse. The progressives knew 
that the reactionaries would not support the measure without certain 
concessions and accordingly the friends of the bill tried to yield enough 



52 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

to add a few votes. The brewery crowd knew that they had votes 
enough to kill the bill in the effective form in which it was introduced 
and they opposed every vital amendment to make it less effective through 
fear that it might become so bad that some of their men would vote for 
it. The people ought to know that a number of members who were a 
part of the combination which opposed the adoption of certain amend- 
ments urged the failure to incorporate these amendments in the bill as 
their excuse for voting against it on its final passage. Verily, "the voice 
was Jacob's voice, but the hands were the hands of Esau." 

The enemies of the initiative and referendum, led by Charles R. 
Fowler, a brewery attorney, and Geo. W. Brown, attempted to amend 
the Campbell bill so as to render it inapplicable to measures except by a 
majority of all the votes cast at the election, instead of a majority of the 
votes cast for any measure itself — the point raised in the Sulerud bill dis- 
cussed in another chapter. Thomas Kneeland also objected to the meas- 
ure on the ground that it made it too easy for the people to change their 
own constitution and proposed an amendment eliminating constitutional 
changes from the initiative provisions of the bill. All of these and other 
amendments were voted down, and H. F. No. 681 was placed upon its 
final passage in a form which would have played havoc with the special 
interests and professional politicians of Minnesota, had it been passed 
and adopted into the constitution of the state. It was defeated by the 
following vote, Messrs. Kunze and Spooner voting for it under protest: 

For the Progressive Initiative and Referendum Bill. — A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, 
Booth royd, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Conley, Converse, Crane, Davies, Davis, Farley, 
Ferguson, Frankson, Greene, Harding, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, C. E. Johnson, J. N. 
Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Klemer, Kunze, I. .7. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, Lundeen, McMartin, 
Mattson, Morton, A. Nelson, Nolan, Nygren, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, A. J. Peterson, J. B. 
Peterson, Putnam, "Ribenack, Rines, Robertson, Robinson, Ru«tad, Sampson, Skartum, Spoon- 
er, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, E. Warner, Webb, Whiting — 54. 

Against an Effective Initiative and Referendum Bill. — Aker, Andrew Anderson, Borgen, 
Bouok, G. W. Broun, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Denzer, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Fowler, 
Fuchs, Hafften, Hauge, Healy, Honion, Herzberg, Hopkins, Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe, 
Kelly, Knapp, Kneeland, Kniitson. S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, McDonald, MaeKenzie, 
McNeill, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Nash, H. Nelson, Nye, O'Brien, Papke, Perry, Peters, 
0. Peterson, Pfaender, Reed, Rice, Saggau, Schuler, Schwartz, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thiel- 
en, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, Washburn, Wescott, White, Wisniewski, and Speaker H. H. 
Dunn— 62. 

The following morning the special order was continued and the 
Pfaender bill was considered. This bill was bad at the beginning. But 
it was not deemed sufficient that it provided for percentages which made 
it practically worthless. Its friends, the brewery element, made it even 
worse by amendments. They wanted to make it so bad that the progres- 
sives would join with those of their forces who were bold enough to 
oppose any bill on the subject, and vote against it. 

First, Mr. Pfaender had adopted an amendment which made it im- 
possible later to initiate legislation with less percentages than those 
named in his bill. 

Then an amendment was adopted which made it impossible for the 
people to initiate constitutional amendments as they could other laws. 
This was aimed at such questions as woman suffrage. 

Next Mr. Fowler championed an amendment which provided a 
further and almost insurmountable handicap for the people by requiring 
that each law initiated by them must receive a majority of all votes 
cast at the election, instead of a majority of those voting on that par- 
ticular question. 

As a final safeguard for the interests, two amendments aimed at 
organized labor were voted into the bill. The first, offered by Mr. Hop- 
kins, provided that the people should^ not have the right to initiate a 
law unless it had been before the legislature and had received at least 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 53 

20 per cent of the votes of either House or Senate; which would not en- 
able labor to use the law on many of the reforms they are working for, 
because a large number of otheir measures are killed by committees 
and never get even one vote on their final passage. The other amend- 
ment against organized labor was offered by Mr. Pfaender, and pro- 
vided that the signers of an initiative petition must be "So distributed 
as to include at least seven percentum of the legal voters in each of at 
least three-fifths of the counties of the state." This "wise" provision 
would have made it impossible for the labor element to initiate any law 
because their forces are conjested in a few centers. 

With these many and ample "safeguards," the Pfaender bill was 
passed by the following vote of 63 to 50: 

Those Voting In tbe Affirmative Were: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, 
Burnquist, Campbell, Clarke. Davies, Davis, Ferguson, Fowler, Frankson. Herzberg, Hill- 
man, Holroherg, Ilolten, Hopkins, Hurley, C. E. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, Keefe, Kelly, 
Kleiner, Knapp, Kneeland, Kuutson, 1. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Lundeen, 
McNeill, Mattson, Mettling, Miuette, Morton, Nash, H. Nelson, Nye, Nygren, O'Brien, 
O'Neill, Palmer, Pfaender, Putnam, Ribenack, Rice, Rines, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, 
Sampson, Schuler, Schwartz, Sulerud, Sullivan, Utecht, Voxland, Washburn, Webb, White, 
Whiting, and Wisniewski — 63. 

Those Voting in the Negative Were: Aker, Andrew Anderson, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. 
Brown, L. D. Brown, Christie, Conley, Converse, Denzer, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Edwards, 
Fuehs, Greene, Ilafften, Harding, Hauge, Ilealy, Hen ion, Jeliuek, J. N. Johnson, Kunze, 
Libera, Lydiard, McDonald, McKenzie, McMartin, Moriarity, A. Nelson, Nolan, Orr, Papke, 
Perry, Peters, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, 0. Peterson, Reed, Saggau, Skartum, C. B. 
Stone, W. T. Stone, Thielen, Untiedt, Virtue, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Wescott, and 
Speaker H. H. Dunn — 50. 

The fifty-four who supported the honest measure divided on the 
final passage of the Pfaender bill. But I think all the progressives were 
agreed that it was worthless. Because of that conviction a number voted 
against it. Other insurgents voted for it in the hope that the Senate 
would amend it into effective form. Figure it any way you will, the 
brewers won the House battle. 

In the Senate progressive initiative and referendum bills were in- 
troduced by O. A. Lende and John Moonan. These measures were 
pigeon-holed in a subcommittee of the judiciary headed by W. W. Dunn, 
brewery attorney, throughout the session. The Pfaender bill, after its 
passage by the House, was also given into the custody of this same sub- 
committee where it remained until too late for any action by the Senate, 
And yet there are citizens of the state who will maintain that the brew- 
ery combine did not dominate the session and control its most vital 

actions. 

* * * 

THE RECALL. 

S. F. No. 8, by John Moonan, providing for the recall of public offi- 
cials, except judges, passed the Senate March 28th by the following vote: 

For the Recall. — Ahmann, Bedford, Benson, Boyle, Carpenter, Cashman, Cheadle, Clague, 
C. F. Cook, Dale, Denegre, Donaldson, Duea. Dwinnell, Elwell, Fosseen, Froshaug, Guilder- 
son, Hackney, Hanson, Haycraft, C. D. Johnson, V. L. Johnson, Johnston, Klein, Lende, 
L'Herault, McGrath, Marden, Moonan, Murray, Nelson. Odell, Pauly, Peterson. Poehler, 
Rockne, Rustad, Sageng, Saugstad, Schaller, J. D. Sullivan, Sundberg, Thoe, Wallace, Weis, 
Wilson, Works — 48. 

Against the Recall. — Anderson, Coller, L. O. Cooke, Dunn, Duxbury, Gunn, Handlan, 
Pugh, G. H. Sullivan, Van Hoven — 10. 

This bill then passed into the House and was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Elections, from which it was recalled April 10th and made a 
special order for April 13th. Here occurred some of the notorious 
"team work" between House and Senate. The reactionary House leaders 
knew that the Senate was seeking an excuse to defeat the recall bill 
and provided that excuse by amending S. F. No. 8 so that it applied to 
judges, which the upper body had excepted. Amended in that form 
the Moonan recall bill passed the House by the following vote: 



54 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

For the Recall. — Aker, Andrew Anderson, A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, 
Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Conley, Con- 
verse, Crane, Davies, Denzer, Diessner, Edwards, Farley, Ferguson, Fowler, Frankson, Fuchs, 
Greene, Hafften, Harding, Hauge, Herzberg, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, Jelinek* 
C. E. Johnson, J, N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Kleiner, Knapp, Kneeland, 
Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lindberg, Lundeen, Lydiard, Mc- 
Donald, McMartin, McNeil, Mattson, Mettling, Minette, Morton, Nash, A. Nelson, H. Nelson, 
Nolan, Nye, Nygren, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, Perry, Peters, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, 
O. Peterson, Pfaender, Putnam, Reed, Ribenaek, Rice, Rines, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, 
Sampson, Schuler, Schwartz, Skartum, Spooner, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Sullivan, Untiedt, 
Utecht, Voxland, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, Webb, Wescott, White, Whiting, 
Wisniewski, Speaker H. H. Dunn — 104. 

Against the Recall. — Clarke, Congdon, R. C. Dunn, Healy, Henion, Hurley, Knutson, 
MacKenzie, Moriarity, Papke, Saggau, C. E. Stone, Thielen, Virtue — 14. 

,Of course the Senate refused to concur in the House amendments 
to S. F. No. 8. When Senator Moonan moved that the bill be placed 
on its repassage as amended, Senator Putnam made a substitute motion 
that a conference committee be appointed, which carried, thereby de- 
feating the recall. 

The conference committee consisted of Senators Putnam, Moonan 
and Coller, appointed by Lieutenant-Governor Gordon, and Representa- 
tives Kneeland, J. N. Johnson, and Congdon, appointed by Speaker Dunn. 
This committee reported late in the afternoon of the last day, recom- 
mending that the bill be passed with the judges eliminated, and the con- 
ference report was adopted by both branches, and the bill repassed the 
House by the following vote: 

For the Recall. — Aker, Andrew Anderson, A. V. Anderson, Boothroyd, Bouck, G. W. 
Brown, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Conley, Converse, Crane, Davies, Davis, Farley, Fer- 
guson, Fowler, Frankson, Greene, Hafften, Hauge, Healy, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, Hop- 
kins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, Kelly, Klemer, Knapp, Kneeland, 
Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lindberg, Lundeen, Lydiard, Mc- 
Donald, McMartin, McNeil, Mattson, Minette, Morton, Nash, A. Nelson, Nolan, Nye, Ny- 
gren, O'Brien, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, -Perry, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, 0. Peterson, 
Putnam, Reed, Ribenaek, Rice, Rines, Robinson, Rustad, Sampson, Schuler, Schwartz, Skar- 
tum, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Utecht, Voxland, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, Webb, 
White, Whiting, Wisniewski, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 85. 

Against the Recall. — Borgen, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Congdon, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, 
Hoffman, Hurley, MacKenzie, Moriarity, H. Nelson, Peters, Saggau, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, 
Thielen, Untiedt, Virtue— 18. ^ 

The best test in the House on the recall came on April 10th, when 
Thomas Kneeland moved that S. F. No. 8 be withdrawn from the Com- 
mittee on Elections and made a special order. The following voted 
against that attempt to advance the bill and to make its passage possible: 

And. Anderson, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Congdon, Denzer, Diessner, 
R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Farley, Hafften, Healy, Henion, Hurley, Knutson, S. N. Lee, Lennon, 
Lydiard, McDonald, McKenzie, Mettling, Nye, O'Brien, Perry, Reed, Ribenaek, Rice, Saggau, 
C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Wescott, White and Speaker H. H. 
Dunn— 37. 

But final adjournment, through a mistake in announcing the vote, 
saved the politicians in the Senate. The recall bill had been reached 
and the report of the conference committee adopted. All that remained 
was for S. F. No. 8 to be put upon its final passage, and it would have 
become a law, with the Governor's signature. The reactionaries^ led 
by George H. Sullivan, were fighting desperately. It was the last night, 
remember, and adjournment was their only hope. A motion to adjourn 
had already been voted down. Then there was a last attempt — and the 
mistake which cost the people both the recall and the primary extension. 
Senator Moonan had moved that the roll be called on the repassage of 
the recall bill, when Senator Dunn, brewer}?- attorney, made a substitute 
motion that the Senate adjourn, sine die. What follows is an exact 
copy of the Senate record: 

"Mr. Dunn moved that the Senate adjourn until 11 o'clock tomorrow 
morning. 

"The question being taken on the adoption of the motion, 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 55 

"And the roll being called, there were yeas 33 and nays 30, as follows: 
"Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Anderson 

Boyle 

Carpenter 

Clag-ue 

Coller 

L. 0. Cooke 

Denegre 

Dunn 

Duxbury 

Fos&een 



Abmann 

Bedford 

Benson 

Cashman 

Cheadle 

C. F. Cook 

Dale 

Donaldson 

Duea 

Dwinnell 

Elwell 



Froshaug 


Pugh 


Glotzbach 


Rockne 


Gunn 


Rustad 


C. D. Johnson 


Stebbins 


Johnson 


G." H. Sullivan 


Klein 


J. D. Sullivan 


Marden 


Swanson 


Murray 


Van Hoven 


Olson 


Wallace 


Poebler 


Weis 


n the negative were: 




Gunderson 


Odell 


Hackney 


Pauly 


Handlan 


Peterson 


Hanson 


Putnam 


Haycraft 


Sageng 


V. L. Johnson 


Saugstad 


Lende 


Schaller 


L'Herault 


Sundberg 


McGrath 


Thoe 


Moonan 


Wilson 


Nelson 


Works 



"So the Senate was declared adjourned." 

The motion to adjourn was lost — 33 to 30 — but Assistant Secretary 
Simonton reversed the figures in handing the result to Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor Gordon and that official announced that the Senate stood ad- 
journed. Instantly almost there was such a scattering of members that 
it seemed impossible to reassemble the Senate when the mistake was dis- 
covered. 

The thirty-three who voted against adjournment would undoubted- 
ly have voted for both the recall and the primary. Mr. Simonton's 
mistake was an expensive blunder. 

In both House and Senate the reactionaries depended upon the 
general policy of delay and subtly contrived, shrewdly masked discord 
between the two bodies. A simple, straightforward rule limiting the 
time standing committees could keep bills pigeon-holed would have pre- 
vented the pitiable congestion of business which existed at the close, 
and made possible the success of their scheme. The people should under- 
stand that there was nothing accidental in this condition, which enabled 
a majority in both branches to say, "we voted for all progressive meas- 
ures" — only one of which was enacted into law. It is indeed difficult to 
procure reforms from legislators whose only interest in reform is to 
escape the wrath of the people in subsequent elections. 



• • 



CHAPTER IX. 
ELECTION MEASURES. 

Telling the truth is unpleasant. It would be far more agreeable to 
pass over certain incidents in the fight for reform and progress in the 
election laws of the state. For example, I should very much prefer to 
give everyone connected with the passage of the Keefe bill full credit 
for honest intentions. That measure, which provides for the popular 
election of United States Senators, was voluntarily reported from the 
House Committee on Elections with the recommendation that it "do 
pass" — which made one wonder. Then, a few days later, it passed the 
House unanimously, which was more wondrous still. 

Possibly one reason was unintentionally indicated by Mr. Fowler 
when in arguing against the initiative and referendum he suggested that 
direct legislation was wholly unnecessary. "The people can get anything 
they want from the legislature. See how easily the Keefe bill was 
passed." It certainly came in handy for such purposes at that critical 
time. But it is my belief that it journeyed through the House, prac- 
tically unopposed, because the reactionaries thought it could ultimately 
be defeated in the same way that the recall, the primary and other vital 
measures were killed — through a lack of team work between the two 
bodies. 

Precisely the same situation prevailed in reference to the income 
tax amendment to the federal constitution. The Clinton Robinson in- 
come tax bill passed the House unanimously, as did the Keefe bill. But 
some of the reactionaries had intended to fight the income tax and at 
least one speech was carefully prepared for delivery against it. Suddenly 
all signs of opposition subsided and when the measure was placed upon 
its final passage there was not a single negative vote. I believe this was 
because its enemies knew that the bill would be killed in the Senate, as 
it was. It is also my belief that the politicians permitted the Keefe bill 
to sail smoothly through the House because they had the same unfalter- 
ing faith in the ability of certain political pirates to wreck the measure 
in the Senate. 

The Keefe bill was substantially the Oregon law which provides that 
party candidates for United States Senator shall be nominated by the 
people at the primary election, and then pledges legislators to vote for 
the one receiving the highest number of votes at the general election, 
regardless of which party he represents. After its passage by the House, 
Senators Lende and Works sidetracked their bills covering the same 
ground, giving precedence to the House measure. 

It was on April 7th that the notorious "team work" — the House pull- 
ing in one direction, the Senate in another — began on the Keefe bill. # It 
was necessary, of course, for the Senate to have a substitute with which 
to oppose the progressive measure. This was supplied in S. F. No. 14, 
introduced by Frank Murray, a partisan measure, eliminating all possi- 
bility of the election of a democratic United States Senator by a republi- 
can legislature, and vice versa. The Keefe bill was the Oregon idea; the 
Murray bill followed the less progressive plan adopted in North Dakota. 
It was expected, I believe, that the House would pass one, the Senate 
the other — and the people would get neither. But Senators Lende, Boyle, 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 57 

Haycraft, Moonan, Works and others outgeneralled the reactionaries; 
and the Keefe bill became a law, the only vital reform accomplished at 
the last session. 

The two "team work bills," H. F. No. 127 by Keefe, and S. F. 14 by 
Murray, were considered by the Senate as a special order April 7th. Af- 
ter an unsuccessful attempt to have the Keefe bill considered first, as it 
should have been, the Murray bill was passed by the following vote: 

Those Who Voted In the Affirmative Were: Anderson, Bedford, Benson, Boyle, Cash- 
man, Clagne, Coller, L. 0. Cooke, Dale, Denegre, Duea, Dunn, Dwinnell, El well, Fosseen, 
Froshaug, Gunderson. Gunn, Hackney, Hanson. Haycraft. V. L. Johnson. Johnston, Klein, 
Lende, Marden, Moonan, Murray, Nelson, Odell, Olson, Pauly, Peterson, Pugh, Putnam, 
Eockne, Saugstad, Scebbins, G. H. Sullivan, Sundberg, Swanson, Thoe, Wallace, Wilson. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: Ahmann, Cheadle, C. F. Cook, Donaldson, 
Duxbury, Glotzhach, Handlan, C. D. Johnson, L'Herault, Poehler, Sageng, Schaller, J. D. 
Sullivan, Van Hoven, Weis, Works. 

But the progressives had outwitted the reactionaries in this; several 
voted for the Murray bill with the understanding that the Keefe bill 
would at once be placed at the head of the calendar and remain there, 
ready for final action, whenever the Senate should decide to consider it. 

Then for a time the usual "team work" situation prevailed. The 
House had passed the Keefe bill and sent it into the Senate. The Senate 
had passed the Murray bill and sent it into the House. Both branches 
were in a position to say to their constituents: "We voted for a bill 
providing for the popular election of United States Senators," and yet 
such a law had not been enacted. But for once, and the only time dur- 
ing the session, on a vital issue, the House democrats exerted their bal- 
ance of power in behalf of the people and refused to consider the Mur- 
ray bill. Whereupon the Senate was forced to take up and pass the 
Keefe bill, which was done on the last day, April 18th, by the following 
vote: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Wpre: Ahmann, Anderson, Bedford, Benson, Boyle, 
Cashman, Cheadle, Clagne, Collei, C. F. Cook, L. O. Cooke, Denegre, Donaldson, Duxbury, 
Dwinnell, El well, Fosseen, Froshaug, Glotzhach, Gunderson, Hackney, Handlan, Hanson, 
Haycraft, C. D. Johnson, V. L. Johnson, Johnston, Klein, Lende, L'Herault, McGrath, Marden, 
Moonan, Murray, Nelson, Odell, Olson, Pauly, Peterson, Poehler, Putnam, Rockne, Sageng, 
Saugstad, Schaller, Stebbins, J. D. Sullivan, Sundberg, Swanson, Thoe, Van Hoven, Wallace, 
Weis, Wilson, Works. — 55. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: Carpenter, Dale, Dunn, Gunn, Pugh, G. H. 
Sullivan. — 6. 

But this was not accomplished until after the reactionaries, led by 
Geo. H. Sullivan, had made a desperate attempt to kill the bill by attach- 
ing at least one amendment. Even the changing of one word would 
have necessitated its repassage by the House, and it was the last day, 
remember. This roll call upon one of Mr. Sullivan's proposed amend- 
ments is significant as indicating many of the "team work" Senators: 

For the Amendment: Anderson, Carpenter. L. 0. Cooke, Dale, Denegre, Dunn, Duxbury, 
Dwinnell, Elwell, Gunn, Johnston, Klein, Marden, Murray. Nelson, Olson, Pugh, Putnam, 
Eockne, Rustad, Stebbins, G. H. Sullivan, Swanson, Thoe, Wallace, Wilson. — 26. 

Against the Amendment: Ahmann, Bedford, Benson, Boyle. Cashman, Cheadle, Clague, 
Coller. C. F. Cook, Donaldson, Duea, Fosseen, Froshaug. Glotzhach, Gunderson, Hackney, 
Handlan, Hanson, Haycraft, C. D. Johnson, V. L. Johnson, Lende, L'Herault, McGrath, 
Moonan, Odell, Pauly, Peterson, Poehler, Sageng, Saugstad, Schaller, J. D. Sullivan, Sund- 
berg, Van Hoven, Weis, Works. — 37. 

* * * 

CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. 

A complete revision and reform of the corrupt practices act was 
provided for in bills introduced in the House by W. A. Fisher and W. T. 
Stone. The latter followed the Oregon statute and included the "pub- 
licity pamphlet" which has accomplished so much for political education 
and purification, in that progressive state. Both were "indefinitely post- 
poned" by the Committee on Elections, but Dr. Stone succeeded in hav- 



58 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

ing the report of the committee overturned on March 7th, and his bill 
placed on general orders by the following vote: 

To Advance the Stone Corrupt Practices Bill: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, G. W. 
Brown, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Conley, Converse, Crane, Davies, Davis, Diessner, Far- 
ley, Ferguson, Frankson, Green, Harding', Hauge, Henion, Hillman, Hoffman, Holinberg, 
Holten, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, Klemer, Knapp, Knee- 
land, Knutson, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, Lundeen, McMartin, McNeil, Mattson, Minette, 
Moriarity, A. Nelson, H. Nelson, Nolan, Nygren, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, Peters, A. J. Peter- 
son, J. B. Peterson, O. Peterson, Pfaender, Putnam, Rice, Rines, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, 
Sampson, Schuler, Schwartz, Skartum, Spooner, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Untiedt, Utecht, 
Webb, Wisniewski — 70. 

To Kill the Bill in Committee: Aker, And. Anderson, Borgen, Bouck, L. D. Brown, 
Clarke, Congdon, Denzer, R. C. Dunn, Fowler, Fuchs, Hafften, Healy, Herzberg, Hurley, 
Kelly, Kunze, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Lydiard, McDonald, MacKenzie., Mettling, Nye, O'Brien, 
Papke, Perry, Reed, Ribenack, Saggau, C. E. Stone, Thielen, Virtue, C. H. Warner, E. 
Warner, Washburn, Wescott, White, Speaker H. H. Dunn. — 39. 

The Stone bill never progressed beyond general orders. It fell a 
victim to the general congestion of business and was not considered on 
its final passage. 

PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATES. 

Earnest Lundeen introduced a bill providing for a primary election 
to choose delegates to national conventions. This was a copy of th« 
excellent Wisconsin law, which would have interfered with the opera- 
tion of the federal machine; accordingly it was held in the Committee on 
Elections until April 12th — too late for it to survive the general conges- 
tion. 

* * * 

THE STATE-WIDE PRIMARY. 

S. F. No. 603, extending the primary election law to state officers, 
passed the Senate, March 24th, by the following vote: 

For State-wide Primary: Ahmann, Anderson, Bedford, Benson, Boyle, Carpenter, Cash- 
man, Cheadlr, Clague, Dale, Denegre, Donaldson. Duxbury, Dwinnell, Elwell, Fosseen, Fros- 
haug, Gunderson, Hackney, Hanson, Haycraft, V. L. Johnson, Johnston, Klein, Lende, 
L'Herault, McGrath, Marden, Moonan, Murray, Nelson, Odell, Olson, Peterson, Pugh, Putnam, 
Rockne, Rustad, Sageng, Saugstad, Schaller, Stebbins, J. D. Sullivan, Sundberg, Swanson, 
Thoe, Wallace, Weis, Wilson. — 49. 

Against S. F. No. 603: Coller, C. F. Cook, L. 0. Cooke, Dunn, Gunn, C. D. Johnson, 
G. H. Sullivan, Van Hoven. — 8. 

Then the "team work" began. This bill went to the House Commit- 
tee on Elections, from which it was recalled April 5th and made a spe- 
cial order. The story of that incident has already been told in the 
chapter on the speakership. Following that unexpected advantage for 
the progressives, there were hurried gatherings of "alumni coaches" and 
representatives of the state and federal machines. Finally, after several 
adjournments of the special order to give the reactionaries more time, 
S. F. No. 603 passed the House on April 15th, three days before final 
adjournment, by the following vote: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Aker, And. Anderson, A. V. Anderson, 
Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Conley, Converse, Crane, 
Davies, Davis. Denzer. Fowler, Frankson, Fuchs, Hafften, Harding, Hauge, Henion, Herzberg, 
Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, Hurley, Jelinek, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson. Just, 
Keefe, Kelly, Klemer, Knapp, Kneeland, Knutson, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lennon, 
Libera, Lindberg, Lundeen, Lydiard, McMartin, McNeil, Mattson, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, 
Morton, Nash, Nolan, Nye, Nygren, O'Brien, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, Perry, A. J. Peterson, O. 
Peterson, Pfaender, Putnam, Ribenack, Rice, Rines, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, Sampson, 
Schuler, Schwartz, Skartum, Spooner, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Vox- 
land, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, Webb, Wescott, Whiting, Wisniewski, Speaker 
H. H. Dunn. — 92. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: Borgen, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Healy, 
Hoffman, MacKenzie, A. Nelson, H. Nelson, Papke, Peters, Reed, Saggau, C. E. Stone, Virtue, 
White.— 16. 

Of course the bill had been amended by Pfaender and others and had 
to be repassed by the Senate. On April 17th Senator Haycraft moved 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 59 

:hat the Senate concur in the House amendments. Senator Rockne 
noved a substitute motion that the Senate do not concur, but appoint a 
conference committee, which carried by a vote of 32 to 30, thereby de- 
feating the state-wide primary. The vote was as follows: 

To Delay the Passage of S. F. 603: Bedford, Carpenter, Clague, Coller, Denegre, Duea, 
Dunn, Duxbury, Dwinnell, Elwell. Fosseen, Froshaug, Gunn, Hackney, C. D. Johnson, Johnston, 
Klein, L'Herault, Marden, Murray, Kelson, Olson, Pugh, Putnam, Rockne, Rustad, Schaller, 
Stebbins, G. H. Sullivan, Swanson, Wallace, Wilson — 32. 

To Repass the Primary Bill: Ahmann, Anderson, Benson, Boyle, Cashman, Cheadle, 0. 
Cook, Dale, Donaldson, Glotzbach, Gunderson, Haudlan, Hanson, Haycraft, V. L. Johnson, 
Lende, McGrath, Moonan, Odell. Pauly, Peterson, Poehler, Sageng, Saugstad, J. D. Sullivan 
Sundberg, Thoe, Van Hoven, Weis, Works. — 30. 

The Conference Committee consisted of Senators Rockne, Haycraft 
and Putnam, appointed by Lieutenant-Governor Gordon, and Representa- 
tives Holmburg, R. C. Dunn and MacKenzie, by Speaker Dunn. Their 
report was never considered by either body. In both branches the poli- 
ticians and special interests were saved by final adjournment. 



CHAPTER X. 
LIQUOR LEGISLATION. 

The brewery combine is corrupt. This element probably spends 
more money to elect "controllable" members than all the other special 
interests placed together. I shall not attempt to suggest the number of 
legislative candidates who received a "small contribution from friends" 
in liquor circles to help out with campaign expenses. A check for $500.00 
was "small." 

The brewers exert an immeasurably evil influence in Minnesota poli- 
tics. Their profligacy and unscrupulous practices in campaigns make 
the better class of citizens hesitate to become candidates for the legis- 
lature, and results directly in the election of law makers lacking both in 
a patriotic conception of their duties and in the character which should 
accompany such responsibility. The liquor interests do not require a 
high order of intelligence in the ordinary legislator elected through their 
aid, and only sufficient integrity to insure that he will stay bought after 
being paid for in campaign expenses. The logical and inevitable sequel 
is what is known legislatively as the "brewery bunch," whose chief re- 
quisite for statesmanship, from the saloon point of view, is a faithful fol- 
lowing of a few shrewd bell wethers, of which the special interests are 
never in need. 

It has already been indicated why the brewery combine wanted to 
elect members and dominate the session, as they undoubtedly did. A 
number of measures of the deepest fundamental importance, — the initia- 
tive and referendum, the recall, the bill making it possible for the people 
to change their own constitution, extension of the primary, etc., — men- 
aced their political supremacy and had to be killed. Then there were 
many attempted reforms relating directly to their own field of business. 
This chapter deals with them. 

The Temperance Committee appointed by Speaker Dunn consisted 
of F. L. Palmer, chairman, and four other progressives, Henry P. Webb, 
J. E. Peterson, E. F. Whiting and Ralph E. Crane, the last three of 
whom, like the chairman, were new members and inexperienced in com- 
mittee room controversy; Alex. Nelson, a rather unprogressive county 
optionist; and Harrison White, Albert Pfaender, Leonard Virtue, Geo. 
A. MacKenzie, L. D. Brown, W. H. Wescott, W. A. Just, E. J. Fuchs, and 
Henry A. Hoffman, reactionaries, the first six being experienced, espe- 
cially shrewd, and loyal to the liquor interests. In the Senate Lieutenant- 
Governor Gordon appointed a Temperance Committee composed of V. L. 
Johnson, chairman, Julius E. Haycraft, C. J. Gunderson, T. E. Cash man, 
Geo. H. Elwell, C. W. Odell and A. L. Hanson, progressives; and Julius 
Coller and T. M. Pugh, anti-county optionists. These committees are 
given here because they had vital connection with the measures to be 
considered. 

COUNTY OPTION. 

Speaker Dunn promised the appointment of a Temperance Commit 
tee which would report out a county option bill. That was done, and 
much more. Henry Rines introduced H. F. No. 201, the county option 
bill of the Anti-Saloon League, on January 25th. Within less than a 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 61 

vcek the Temperance Committee acted upon it at a meeting attended 
y Speaker Dunn. At his request the bill was sent to the House with 
he recommendation that it be made a special order for February 3rd, 
wo days later. Mr. Rines protested, but in vain. The administration 
vas determined not only to redeem its promise to act promptly, but to 
»ush the bill so fast that its advocates would not have time to prepare 
dequately for the debate. Two years before the politicians had shut 
iff discussion by moving "the previous question;" this was an attempt 
o diminish the dreaded debate by precipitating final action before the 
riends of the bill were ready. 

The action of the Temperance Committee was so obviously unfair 

hat their recommendation was repudiated by a vote of 65 to 48, one 

f the most crushing rebukes ®f the entire session. When Mr. Palmer 

moved that the committee report, fixing the time for the special order 

on February 3rd, be adopted, Mr. Rines moved that the bill be made a 

special order for February 7th. The substitute motion prevailed by the 

ollowing vote: 

To Overturn the Temperance Committee Report: Aker, And. Anderson, A. V. Anderson, 
J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, Borgen, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Congdon, Conley, Con- 
verse, Crane. Da vies, Davis, Denzer, Edwards, Farley, Ferguson, Fowler, Frankson, Greene, 
Harding, Hauge, Holmberg, Holteu, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, 
Klemer. Knapp, Knutson, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lindherg, Lundeen, McMar- 
tin, Mattson. Morton, Nash, A. Nelson, H. Nelson, Nolan, Nye, Nygren, Orr, Perry, A. J. 
Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robertson, Robinson, Rnstad, Skartum, Spooner,. 
W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, Webb — 65. 

To Sustain the Committee: Bouck, G. W. Brown. L. D. Brown, Clarke, Diessner, R. C. 
Dunn, Fuehs, Hafften, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, Hillman, Hoffman, Hurley, Jelinek. Just, 
Keefe, Kelly, Kneeland, Lennon, Libera, Lydiard, MacKenzie, McNeil, Mettling, Minette, 
Moriarity, O'Brien, Palmer, Papke, Peters, O. Peterson, Pfaender, Reed, Ribenack, Rice, 
Saggau, Schuler, Schwartz. C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Dtecht, Virtue, Wescott, 
Wisniewski, Speaker H. H. Dunn — 48. 

Then came February 7th, the day of the special order, and the county 
option bill was placed on its final passage, where a direct vote could be 
taken, for the first time in years. H. F. No. 201 was defeated by the 
following vote: 

For County Option: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Burnquist, Campbell, Conley, Crane, 
Davies, Davis, R. C. Dunn, Ferguson, Frankson, Harding, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, C. E. 
Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Klemer, Kneeland, Knutson, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. 
Lee, Lindherg, McMartin, Mattson, Morton, A. Nelson, Nolan, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, A. J. 
Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robertson. Rustad, Sampson, Skartum, Spooner, 
W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, Webb, Whiting — 50. 

Against County Option: Aker, And. Anderson, Boothroyd. Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, 
L. D. Brown, Christie, Clarke, Congdon, Converse, Denzer, Diessner, Edwards, Farley, Fowler, 
Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Hauge, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hurley, Jelinek, 
Just, Keefe, Kelly, Knapp, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lundeen, Lydiard, McDonald. MacKen- 
zie, McNeil, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Nash, H. Nelson, Nye, Nygren, O'Brien, Papke, 
Perry, Peters, 0. Peterson, Pfaender, Reed, Ribenack, Rice, Robinson, Saggau, Schuler, 
Schwartz, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, Wescott, White, Wisniew- 
ski, Speaker H. H. Dunn— 69. 

In the Senate the same county option bill was introduced by V. L. 
Johnson. It was reported for passage by the Temperance Committee 
and made a special order for February 20th, when it was defeated by the 
following vote: 

For County Option: Bedford Cashman, Dale, Dwinnell, Elwell, Fosseen, Froshaug, Gun- 
derson, Hackney, Hanson, Haycraft, V. L. Johnson, Lende, Nelson, Odell, Peterson, Putnam. 
Rustad, Sageng, Saugstad, Sundberg, Thoe, Wallace, Wilson — 24. 

Against County Option: Ahmann, Andersen, Benson, Boyle, Carpenter, Cheadle, Clagu®, 
Coller, C. F. Cook, L. O. Cooke, Denegre, Duea, Dunn, Duxbury, Glotzbach, Gunn, Handlan, 
C. D. Johnson, Johnston, Klein, L'Herault, McGrath, Marden, Murray, Olson, Pauly, Poehler, 
Pugh, Rockne, Schaller, Stebbins, G. H. Sullivan, J. D. Sullivan, Swanson, VanHoven, Weis, 
Works— 37. 

* * * 

STATE-WIDE PROHIBITION. 

A. V. Anderson introduced H. F. 389, providing for state-wide pro- 
hibition, on February 8th. The Temperance Committee reported it for 



62 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

"indefinite postponement" March 3rd. The report of the Committee was 
overturned and the bill placed upon general orders by the following vote: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Aker, A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, 
Bootlnoyd, Burnquist, Christie, Conley, Converse, Crane, Davies, Davis, Edwards, Farley, 
Frankson, Hauge, Hillman, Hoffman, Holmberg, Holton, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. John- 
son, J. T. Johnson, Klemer, Knapp, Knutson, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lind- 
berg, Lundoen, McMartin, Mattson, Morton, H. Nelson, Nolan, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, A. J. 
Peterson, J. E. Peterson, O. Peterson, Putnam, Rice, Rines, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, 
Sampson, Schwartz, Skartum, Spooner, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, Washburn, Webb, 
Whiting, Wisniewski— 60. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: And. Anderson, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, 
L. D. Brown, Campbell, Clarke, Denzer, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Ferguson, Fowler, Fucha, 
Greene, Hafften, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, Jeliuek, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Kneeland, Lennon, 
Libera, Lydiard, McDonald, MacKenzie, McNeil, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Nash, Nye, 
Nygren, O'Brien, Papke, Perry, Peters, Pfaender, Reed, Ribenack, Saggau, Schuler, C. E. 
Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Wescott, White, Speaker H. H. 
Dunn— 53. 

The session adjourned with this measure still on general orders. 

* * * 

A "daylight lid law" was introduced in the House by J. N. Johnson 
and in the Senate by O. A. Lende. This measure provided that saloons 
should close at eight o'clock. Bills prohibiting lunches in saloons and 
forbidding screens, chairs or tables in saloons were also presented by 
these members, but never reached a final vote. All three were "indefi- 
nitely postponed" by the House Temperance Committee. 

S. F. No. 287, by Senator Lende, making saloon keepers liable for 
damages in cases of injury resulting from the sale of liquor, became a 
law, after first being amended by Senator Dunn, brewery attorney, to 
make it apply only to the "unlawful" sale of intoxicants. 

S. F. No. 423, by Senator Hanson, prohibiting the sale of malt ex- 
cept in licensed saloons, also passed both branches. 

* * * 

H. F. No. 296, by Palmer and Hopkins, prohibiting treating in saloons 
was defeated in the House, April 4th, by the following vote, 61 affirmative 
votes being necessary for the passage of a bill: 

Against Public Treating: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Burnquist, Campbell, Conley, 
Converse, Davies, Davis, R. C. Dunn, Ferguson, Frankson, Harding, Hauge, Hillman, Holm- 
berg, Holten, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Kelly, Klemer, Knee- 
land, Knutson, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, Lundeen, Lydiard, McMartin, Mattson, 
Morton, H. Nelson, Nolan, O'Neill, Palmer, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, O. Peterson, 
Putnam, Rines, Rustad, Sampson, Schuler, Skartum, Spooner, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Vox- 
land, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Webb, Whiting — 54. 

For Public Treating: A.ker, And. Anderson, Boothroyd, Borgen, Bouch, G. W. Brown, 
L. D. Brown, Christie, Clarke, Denzer, Diessner, Edwards, Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Healy, 
Henion, Herzberg, Hoffman, Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe, Libera, McDonald, MacKenzie, 
McNeil, Mettling, Minette, Nye, Nygren, O'Brien, Perry, Peters, Pfaender, Reed, Ribenack, 
Robinson, Sagau, Schwartz, C. E. Stone, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, Washburn, Wes- 
eott. White, Wisniewski — 50. 

* * * 

THE DUNN ROAD HOUSE BILL. 

H. F. No. 637 was introduced by R. C. Dunn, February 28th. It was 
reported from the Temperance Committee without recommendation and 
made a special order for April 11th. The purpose of the bill was to pre- 
vent the licensing of saloons by county commissioners in little country 
places which were unincorporated and without local police regulations. 
It was aimed principally at "road house" resorts. This measure passed 
the House, but not until it had been hopelessly emasculated by an amend- 
ment. # ' 

This amendment was offered by L. H. Rice. It may have been pre- 
pared by some legislative agent of the brewers and given to Mr. Rice to 
present in the hope that it would attract less opposition than if intro- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 63 

duced by some more prominent reactionary, Mr. Rice being only a pri- 
vate in the ranks. It provided that the law should not apply to any "rail- 
road town having a postoffice and one or more general stores and grain 
elevators, and where passenger and freight trains make regular stops," 
which, of course, included scores of just such little hamlets as the bill 
was intended to protect. This "safety" clause was voted into the meas- 
ure without a roll call, but later Mr. Klemer moved to reconsider the 
vote, whereby the Rice amendment was adopted.. The Klemer motion 
was defeated 51 to 61, but it serves to show who wanted an effective 
"road house" law. The vote was as follows: 

Against the Rice Amendment: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Burnquist, Campbell, 
Conley, Crane, Davies, Davis, R. C. Dunn, Farley, Frankson, Harding, Hauge, Hillinan, 
Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Klemer, Knecland, 
Kunze, Knutson, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, Lundeen, McMartin, Mattson, Morton, A. 
Nelson, Nolan, O'Neill, Palmer, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robertson, 
Rustad, Sampson, Skartum, Spooner, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, C. H. Warner, E. 
Warner, Webb, Whiting — 51. 

For the Rice Amendment: Aker, And. Anderson, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. 
Brown, Clarke, Congdon, Denzer, Diessner, Edwards, Ferguson, Fowler, Fuchs, Greene, Haff- 
ten, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, Hoffman, Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Knapp, S. N. Lee, 
Lennon, McDonald, MacKenzie, McNeil, Mettling'. Minette, Moriarity, Nash, H. Nelson, Nye, 
Nygren O'Brien, Papke, Perry, Peters, O. Peterson, Pfaender, Reed, Ribenack, Rice, Robin- 
aon, Saggau, Schuler, Schwartz, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, 
Washburn, Wescott, White, Wisniewski — 61. 

After an attempt to further amend the bill by Mr. Kelly had failed, 
H. F. No. 637 passed the House by the following vote: 

Ayes: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Burnquist, Campbell, Congdon, Conley, Crane, 
Davies, Davis, R. C. Dunn, Farley, Ferguson, Fowler, Frankson, Harding, Hauge, Hillman, 
Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, Jelinek, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, Keefe, 
Klemer, Knapp, Kneelnnd, Knutson, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lennon, Lindberg, Lundeen, 
Lydiard, McMartin, Mattscn, Morton, Nash, A. Nelson, Nolan, O'Neill, Palmer, A. J. Peter- 
Bon J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rice, Rines, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, Sampson, Schwartz, 
Skartum, Spooner, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, 
Webb, White, Whiting, Speaker H. H. Dunn.— 67. 

Noes: Aker, And. Anderson, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Denzer, 
Diessner, Edwards, Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, Hoffman, Hurley, 
Kelly, S. N. Lee, McDonald, MacKenzie, McNeil, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, H. Nelson, Nye, 
Nygren, O'Brien, Papke, Perry, Peters, 0. Peterson, Pfaender, Reed, Ribenack, Saggau, Schul- 
«r, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, Wescott, Wisniewski — 47. 

* * * 

Senator Olson slipped a saloon measure through the Senate. It was 
S. F. No. 131 to repeal a special law enacted to prevent a certain town 
in Jackson County from issuing licenses. The bill was not unmasked 
until after it had passed the upper branch and only the heroic work of 
J. N. Johnson defeated it in the House. It failed to pass on April 13th 
by the following vote: 

Ayes: Aker, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Crane, Denzer, Farley, 
Fowler, Fuchs, Greene, Henion, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hurley, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Kunze, S. N. 
Lee, Libera, MacKenzie, McDonald, McMartin, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Nash, H. Nelson, 
Nye, O'Brien, O'Neil. Papke, Perry, J. E. Peterson, Reed, Ribenack, Rines, Saggau, Schuler, 
Schwartz, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Webb, Wescott, White, Wisniewski, 
Speaker H. H. Dunn — 50. 

Noes: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, Burnquist, Campbell, Conley, Con- 
verse, Davies, Ferguson, Frankson, Harding, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, C. E. Johnson, J. N. 
Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Klemer, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lundeen, Lydiard, Mattson, Morton, 
Nolan, Palmer, Pfaender, Putnam, Robinson, Sampson, Skartum, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, 
Voxland, E. Warner — 35. 

Then Albert Pfaender came to the rescue of the measure, had the 
rote whereby it was defeated reconsidered, and the bill placed upon gen- 
eral orders. It was not reached again. 

* * * 

THE ROBINSON "BREWERY BILL." 

H. F. 745, by Clinton Robinson, was in a class with county option as 
a real bona fide menace to the breweries. It provided that all brewery 



64 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

wagons should be licensed and specified as to how they should be regu- 
lated. The bill was aimed chiefly at houses of prostitution and blind 
pigs, and would have resulted in a greatly decreased illegal sale of liquor. 
It was of such importance that one of the fiercest fights of the session 
was waged about it. 

The Temperance Committee voted to "indefinitely postpone" this 
bill, but never made that recommendation to the House. After learning 
of this action Mr. Robinson quietly intimated to members of that com- 
mittee that he would make a speech the next morning on the specific 
question of brewery influence in the legislature. The Klemer incident 
was still fresh in the minds of these law givers and, following a hasty 
consultation, the Temperance Committee was called together in extra- 
ordinary session, the previous killing of the Robinson brewery bill recon- 
sidered, and the measure sent to the House with the unanimous recom- 
mendation that it be placed on general orders. 

Subsequently H. F. 745 was made a special order and put upon its 
final passage April 11th. It was defeated by the following vote: 

Ayes: A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, Burnqnist, Campbell, Christie, 
Conley, Crane, Davies, Davis. R. C. Dunn, Farley, Ferguson, Frankson, Harding, Hillinan, 
Hoffman, Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson. J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Klemer, 
Knutson, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lennon, Lindherg, McMartin, Mattson, Morton, A. 
Nelson, Nolan, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robertson, 
Robinson, Rustad, Sampson. Schwartz, Skartum, Spooner, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, 
C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, Webb, Whiting — 57. 

Noes: Aker, And. Anderson, Borgen, Bonek, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Cong- 
don, Diessner, Edwards, Fowler, Fuehs, Greene, Hafften, Hauge, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, 
Jelinek, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Knapp, Kneeland, S. N. Lee, Libera, Lundeen, Lydiard, McDonald, 
MacKenzie, McNeil, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Nash, H. Nelson, Nye, Nygren, O'Brien, 
Papke, Perry, Peters, 0. Peterson, Pfaender, Reed, Ribenack, Rice, Saggau, Schuler, C. B. 
Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Dntiedt, Utecht, Virtue, Wescott, White, Wisniewski, Speaker H. H. 
Dunn — 59. 

* * * 

LOCAL OPTION FOR CITIES OF THE FOURTH CLASS. 

The opponents of count}' option justify their position by espousing 
the other theory — local option. Therefore the story of what an anti- 
county option legislature did to the bills to extend local option to cities 
©f the fourth class will be both interesting and instructive. 

On February 3rd, J. N. Johnson introduced H. F. No. 329, extending 
the right to vote on the license question to cities of the fourths class. 
The bill did not disturb the present law in so far as it relates to villages, 
where the question of license or no license can be submitted to the voters 
if a petition is signed by ten citizens. The House Temperance Commit- 
tee considered this measure February 16th and it was "indefinitely post- 
poned." The next morning Mr. Johnson made one of the sensational 
speeches of the session in support of this measure and the majority of the 
Temperance Committee who reported killing the bill were overwhelm- 
ingly repudiated by the following vote: 

To Place H. F. No. 329 on General Orders: Aker, A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Booth- 
royd. Borgen, G. W. Brown, Burnqnist, Campbell, Christie, Conley, Crane, Davies, Davis, 
Denzer, R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Farley, Ferguson, Frankson, Greene, Hafften, Harding. Hauge, 
Hillman, Hoffman, Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, Jelinek, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. 
Johnson, Klemer, Knapp. Kneeland, Knutson. Kunze. I. J. Lee, J, F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lennon, 
Lindberg, Lundeen, Lydiard, McMartin, McNeil, Minette, Morton, Nash. A. Nelson, H. Nel- 
son, Nolan, Nye, O'Neill. Orr, Palmer, Perry, A. J. Peterson. J. E. Peterson, 0. Peterson, 
Putnam. Reed, Rice, Rines, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, Sampson, Schwartz, Skartum, 
Spooner. W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Voxland, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Washburn, Webb, Whit- 
ing, Wisniewski — 84. 

To Permit the Committee to Kill the Bill: Andrew Anderson, Bouck, L. D. Brown, 
Clarke, Converse, Diessner, Fuchs, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, Hurley, Just, Keefe, Kelly, 
Libera,' McDonald, MacKenzie, Mettling, Moriarity, Nygren, Papke. Peters, Pfaender, Ribe- 
nack, Saggau, Schuler, C. E. Stone, Thielen, Dntiedt, Utecht, Virtue, Wescott, White, and 
Speaker H. H. Dunn — 34. 

This vote was so lar^e that it became apparent that such a bill would 
pass. Then it was that Speaker Dunn is said to have gone to his Tern- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 65 

perance Committee and insisted on their introducing a committee bill 
on the same subject. H. F. No. 892 was the result. The substitute, 
known among legislators as Speaker Dunn's bill, was probably presented 
for two reasons: (1) to take away from Mr. Johnson the credit of pass- 
ing such a measure through the House and give that needed glory to 
the reactionary element; and (2) to replace his bill, which was a good one, 
with a substitute full of features more favorable to the breweries. H. F. 
No. 892 contained three bad provisions not in the Johnson bill over which 
it was given precedence. First, it changed the number of signers re- 
hired to submit the license question by petition in villages and towns 
: rom ten voters to twenty-five per cent of the voters. Second, it pro- 
vided that a majority of those voting on the license question could carry 
r or license, whereas the old law required a majority of all voting at the 
ilection. Third, it exempted cities with home rule charters. 

H. F. No. 892, containing all these safeguards for the liquor interests, 

although introduced after the Johnson bill was on general orders, was 

iven the right of way. The day of its introduction L. C. Spooner moved 

that it be made a special order for March 15th. It passed the House on 

that date by a vote of 84 to 27, several of the progressives and temper- 

nce members voting against it. 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Aker, Andrew Anderson. J. J. Anderson, 
Booth royd, Borgen, Rouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown. Burnquist, Campbell, Christie. Clarke, 
ongdon, Conlt-y, Converse, Crane, Davis. Denzer. Diessner. R. C. Dunn, Edwards. Farley, 
Fowler, Greene, Hafften. Hauge. Heuion. Hillman, Hoffman, Holmherg, Holfen, Hopkins, 
Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe. Kelly. Kneeland, Kunze, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lundeen, 
Lydiard, McDonald, MacKenzie, McNeil, Mettling, Moriarity, Morton, Nash, H. Nelson, Nye, 
ren, O'Brien, O'Neill, Palmer. Papke, Perry. Peters, A. J. Peterson. J. E. Peterson, O. 
person, Reed, Rihenaek, Rice, Robinson, Saggau. Sampson, Schuler, Schwartz, Spooner, 
E. Stone. Sullivan. Thielen. Untiedt, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Washburn, Wescott, White, 
Whiting, Wisniewski, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 84. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: A. V. Anderson, Davies, Ferguson, Harding, 
E. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Kleiner, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, McMaitin, Mattson, 
Minette, A. Nelson. Nolan, Pfaender, Putnam, Rines, Robertson, Rustad, Skartum, W. T, 
tone, Snlerud, Utecht. Voxland, E. Warner, Weld) — 27. 

It then passed into the Senate. There it was amended by Senator 
Haycraft and others, restoring the old status of villages and towns, and 
xtending its application to cities with home rule charters. When the bill 
was reached on general orders, April 10th, Senator Dunn, brewery attor- 
ney, had it amended, striking out the reference to home rule cities, and 
n that form it passed the Senate unanimously April 17th. 

Its next journey was back to the House for concurrence in the 
Senate amendments. Mr. MacKenzie moved that the House do not con- 
ur and asked for a conference committee. Mr. Davies made a substi- 
ute motion that the House do concur and repass the bill. This substi- 
ute motion was lost, 52 to 56, thereby defeating the attempt to extend 
ocal option to cities of the fourth class. This vote, which was the real 
est on the question of extending local option to cities of the fourth class, 
was as follows, those voting "aye" being in favor of the bill: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: A. V. Anderson, Boothroyd, Burnquist. Camp- 
)pll. Conley, Converse. Crane. Davies, Davis, Farley, Ferguson. Frankson, Harding, Hauga, 
illman, Holmherg. Holten. Hopkins. C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Kleiner, 
unze, 1. J. Lee. J. F. Lee, Llndberg, Lundeen. McMartin, Mattson, Morton, A. Nelson, 
olan, O'Neill, Palmer, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson. Putnam, Rines. Robinson. Rustad, 
nuipson, Schwartz. Skartum, Snooner, W. T. Stone, Snlerud, Voxland, C. H. Warner. E. 
Varner, Washburn, Whiting, Wisniewski — 52. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: Aker, Andrew Anderson, Borgen, Bouck, G. 
7. Brown, L. D. Brown, Christie, Clarke. Congdon. Denzer, Diessner, Edwards, Fowler, 
uchs, Greene. Hafften, Healy, Henion, Herzhcrg. Hoffman. Hurley, Just, Keefe, Kelly S. N. 
#e, Lennon. Libera. Lydiard, McDonald. MacKenzie. McNeil. Mcttling. Moriarity, Nash, H. 
Jelson, Nye, O'Brien. Papke, Perry, Peters, O. Peterson, Pfae< -der. Reed, Rihenaek, Rice. 
aggau, Schuler. C. E. Stone, Sullivan. Thielen. Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, Wescott, White, and 
peaker H. H. Dunn — f>6. 

The conference committee on this bill consisted of Senators Hay- 
raft, Sageng and Lende, and Representatives MacKenzie, Wescott and 



66 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

Palmer. Their report was never acted upon in the House, and was one 
of the things responsible for the disgraceful disorder which marked the 
final adjournment. 

It has always been the custom in Minnesota on the last night of 
the session to set the clock back and thus work after midnight. On this 
occasion, with action upon H. F. No. 892, and a number of the most vital 
measures pending, a crowd of saloon sympathizers from among the mem- 
bers gathered about the clock and refused to permit officers of the House 
to touch it. This "brewery bunch," as they have become known, were 
reinforced by a gang of rowdies, some third house members, in the south 
gallery, who prevented the insurgents from reaching the clock from that 
direction. There is a suspicion that the whole affair was engineered by 
brewery lobbyists. 

Thus surrounded and possessed, the clock looked down upon a scene 
of disorder almost without precedent, even in the annals of tenderloin 
saloon brawls, and ticked away the fateful minutes until midnight ar- 
rived. Then ignoring all that an hour more might have meant to the 
state, T. J. Greene moved that the House do adjourn. That motion was 
defeated by a vote of 37 to 70. But the reactionaries were not to be de- 
nied. They had protected the clock; now the clock must protect them. 
Its hands pointed to twelve. This "protest" was sent to the Speaker, 
read and made a part of the record: 

"We, the undersigned, members of the House of Representatives of 
the Minnesota Legislature, do, pursuant to section sixteen, of article four, 
of the State Constitution, protest against and dissent from the considera- 
tion and passage by this House of any bill or resolution, upon the ground 
that it is now after twelve o'clock midnight of Tuesday, April 18th, A. D. 
1911, and therefore this session has now exceeded the term of ninety leg- 
islative days and this House has no power to consider any such bill or 
resolution, and the reasons for this dissent we wish entered upon the 
Journal. 

(Signed) "T. M. Ferguson, Geo. A. MacKenzie, W. H. Wescott, Har-| 
rison White, Chester A. Congdon, C. E. Stone, L. Virtue, P. J. Mettling 
M. J. Sullivan, Geo. M. Nye." 

The Speaker ruled that the hour of twelve had arrived and that th 
legislative session under the Constitution was over. A. J. Peterson ap 
pealed from the decision of the chair, but the Speaker was sustained b 
a vote of 65 to 48. It was a fitting finish to a session dominated through-] 
out by the liquor element. That adjournment should be taken with fina 
action pending on so many important measures was an appropriate cli 
max to the session-long policy of delay pursued by the special interes 
members. 

The following day Speaker Dunn is quoted as saying that he "ough 
to have smashed the clock." The better, saner, safer course would hav 
been to have smashed the reactionary House machine months before. 



CHAPTER XI. 
DEFEATING THE DISTANCE TARIFF. 

There are only two elements in politics — property and patriotism. 
The conflict between special privilege on one hand and equality of op- 
portunity on the other is as eternal as the ages. In past political epochs 
this property power in politics manifested itself and maintained its ad- 
vantage over the people through such crude means as the colonization 
of voters, the bribery of election officials, the purchasing of law makers 
and executives. In later years sentiment has become aroused and un- 
compromising in its condemnation of such practices. Accordingly the 
corporations have been compelled to modernize their methods. The 
predatory interests no longer depend solely upon boss and boodleism 
for the continuance of their commercial supremacy. Instead they go 
directly to the people and through the subtle, insidious misdirection of 
public opinion shape legislation as they desire. It would be impossible 
to find a better illustration of this than in the fight over the Cashman 
distance tariff bill. A decade ago the railroads might have accomplished 
its defeat directly by bribery or blackmail, or both. But at this session 
the transportation trust attacked the measure indirectly, through the 
agencies of publicity which were controlled by selfish interests and ob- 
viously used by them to misdirect the public mind and dull the public 
conscience. 

First, a word about the bill. Every informed person knows that the 
:ailroads have corrupted politics; that through their control of conven- 
:ions and commissions and legislatures and executives they have com- 
pelled the public to pay dividends on stock that is at least half water. 
But exorbitant rates are not so evil in their influence upon individuals 
md industrialism as are discriminative rates. Because they have been 
permitted to fix rates almost at will, discriminating as they chose, the 
ailroads have been able to coldly decree which communities should 
lourish and which decay and die. The map of America has been made 
)y the transportation trust. The ebb and flow of population has been 
letermined not by the character and industry of people, or by the natural 
idvantages of one section over another, but by the desire of "empire 
)uilders" to so manipulate the relative growth of communities as to 
nake the maximum of business for the railroads. 

There are two transportation theories, which great railroad minds 
tnderstand to be fundamentally different. One deals with the smallest 
)ossible number of large centers. This, in a word, means that both 
he producer and the consumer have to pay the maximum of transporta- 
ion taxes. The other theory deals with the greatest number of small 
lanufacturing and distributing centers, each serving its surrounding ter- 
itory. This would mean the minimum of both freight and passenger 
business for the railioads, and a corresponding saving for the people. 

Throueh discriminative rates the railroads have contributed largely 
o the building of one great center — St. Paul and Minneapolis. — at the 
xr>ense of every other section of the state. They could not keep Du- 
Jth from growth because of its lake port advantages, so that enternris- 
ng city was given the same rates as the Twin Cities. But hundreds of 
ountry towns in the state have not been permitted to grow beyond the 
'nportance of little retailing villages. As a direct result it can safely 



68 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

be said that Minnesota has a transportation tribute not only exorbitantly 
high, but for an aggregate distance at least twice as great, conse- 
quently twice as burdensome, as it would have been had not the rail- 
roads arrogantly directed the population and industries of the state into 
great centers. 

The Cashman distance tariff bill was aimed at discriminative rates. 
Under its provisions a manufacturer or wholesaler in the smallest town 
would have had to pay the same freight charges as his competitor in 
the largest city. It would have operated to distribute population more 
evenly throughout the state. It would have ended discrimination by 
making rates equal for the same distance all over the state. 

Senator Thomas E. Cashman first introduced his distance tariff bill 
in 1907. Then it was defeated, largely through the influence of a hostile 
Senate Committee on Railroads appointed by Lieutenant-Governor Eber- 
hart. Senator Cashman again introduced the same measure in 19C9, and 
again it could not survive an unfriendly, unfair organization of the Sen- 
ate. But in the 1911 session conditions seemed more proritious. Lieu- 
tenant-Governor Gordon named a Committee on Railroads which was 
headed by Senator Sundberg and contained a majority of progressives. 
More than that, Senator Cashman had led in a movement, extending 
over the entire state and continued for four years, to educate the rural 
communities as to the evil effect of railroad rate discriminations. The 
result of this was the injection of the distance tariff idea into many dis- 
tricts as a campaign issue and the election of numerous members in both 
branches interested in its enactment which was in itself a notable achive- 
ment for the determined author of the bill. 

The distance tariff bill — S. F. No. 5 — placing freight rates upon a 
mileage basis, was introduced by Senator Cashman on January 5th. Al! 
indications pointed to its passage, and there at once began one of the 
most modern, spectacular legislative battles ever waged anywhere in 
America. The phase of this contest which every citizen of the state 
should understand is that the railroad ring pressed the button that set 
in motion the whole special interest system of improvising public opinion 
against the measure. Simultaneously the large city jobbers and the large 
city dailies chorused their objections to the bill. Then subservient in- 
terests here, there and everywhere chimed in with a resounding note of 
protest. The result was a state of sentiment, almost wholly mechanical, 
which befogged the issue and made it appear that the very communities 
to be most benefited by the bill were up in arms against it. Senator 
Cashman had this subtle, insidious influence to fight. 

The Railroad and Warehouse Commission opposed the measure, per- 
haps honestly and without bias. 

But mightier than all the combined forces of the Transportation 
Trust, Big Business, the Twin Cities and the Metropolitan Press, was 
the verdict of the Attorney-General and the lawyers who had been and 
for some time will be representing the state in litigation with the rail- 
roads. These attorneys held and I have no doubt it was their honest 
opinion, that the enactment of the distance tariff law would throw out 
of court the commodity rate cases then pending a decision. Senatoi 
Cashman insisted that his bill could not have that effect since it d i 'd not 
fix rates, but only provided that rates should be equal; and he predicte< 
that it would not matter anyway, because the state would lose the deci- 
sion, which was borne out when Judore Sanbo r n handed down his pro- 
railroad opinion shortly before adjournment. The contention of Messrsl 
Simnson and Young influenced enough Senators like Bedford, V. Lj 
Johnson. Sundbersr and Thoe to decide the issue and on February 24tl 
the Cashman distance tariff bill was defeated for the third time in as 
many consecutive sessions, by the following vote: 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 69 

For the Distance Tariff: Anderson, Benson, Casliman, Coller, C. F. Cook, L. O. Cooke, 
Dale, Donaldson, Froshaug, Glotzhach, Gunderson, Hanson, Haycraft. C. D. Johnson, Johns- 
ton, Leude, Mconan, Murray, Olson, Peterson, Poebler, Putnam, Roekne, Rustad, Sagcug, 
Saugstad, Schaller, Weis, and Works— 29. 

Against the Distance Tariff: Almiann, Bedford, Boyle, Carpenter, Cheadle, Clague, 
Denegre, Duea, Dunn, Dwinnell. Elwell, Fosseen, Gunn, Hackney, Handlan, V. L. Johnson, 
Klein. L'Herault, MoGrttth, Marden, Odell, Pauly, Pugh, Steliliius, G. H. Sullivan, J. D, 
Sullivan, Sundherg, Swansou, Thoe, Van Hoven, Wallace and Wilson — 32. 

No friend of the people ever battled against bigger obstacles or with 
greater credit to himself than did Senator Cashman in his advocacy of 
the distance tariff idea. He fought practically alone; on the railroad 
side were a full score of traffic experts, railroad attorneys and represent- 
atives of Twin City wholesale interests. Yet two votes changed would 
have passed the bill in the Senate, and it is generally conceded that five 
times that number were saved to the railroads because Judge Sanborn's 
decision had not been rendered. 

In the House the same bill was introduced by Ralph E. Crane. The 
Committee on Railroads had the measure pigeon-holed from January 18th 
to April 10th, a condition made possible by the joker in the reactionary 
rules. Then on motion of Mr. Crane, H. F. No. 106 was recalled from 
the committee and made a special order for April 12th, when it passed 
by the following vote: 

lor the Distance Tariff: Aker, Andrew Anderson, A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Bouck, 
G. W. Brown, L. I). Brown, Christie. Conley. Converse, Crane, Da vies, Denzer. Diessner. Far- 
lev, Frankson, Hafften, Harding, Hjiuge, Henion, Hoffman, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. 
Johnson, J. T. Johnson. Kelly, Kleiner, Knutson, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lindherg, 
MaeKenzie, McMartin, Minette, Moriarity, A. Nelson, Nygren, Papke, Peters, A. J. Peter- 
son. O. Peterson. Putnam, Rv*ed. Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, Saggau, Sampson, Schwartz, 
Skartum, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Utecht, Virtue, Voxland, C. H. Warner, E. Warner, Wes- 
cott, White, Whiting, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — G2. 

Against the Distance Tariff: Bonthroyd, Borgen, Burnquist, Campbell, Clarke, Congdon, 
R. C. Dunn. Edwards. Ferguson, Fowler, Fuchs. Greene. Healy, Ilerzberg, Hillman, Holm- 
berg, Holten, Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe, Knapp, Kneeland, Kunze, Lennon, Libera, Lun- 
deen, Lydiard, McDonald, McNeil, Mattson, Mettling, Morton. Nash. H. Nelson. Nolan, Nye, 
O'Brien, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer. Perry. J. E. Peterson, Pfaeuder, Ribenack, Rice, Rines, Schu- 
ler. Spooner, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Washburu, Webb and Wisniewski —56. 

This eleventh hour action of the House, although accompanied by 
much trumpetry, counted for nothing. It came too late in the session. 
If the friends of the bill had made an earlier interference with its hiber- 
nation in the Railroad Committee and sent it into the Senate it would un- 
doubtedly have passed that body after the Sanborn decision became pub- 
lic. At it was, there were only four more Senate days after the distance 
tariff measure passed the House, which made it impossible for it to sur- 
vive the congestion of business at the close. 



CHAPTER XII. 
THE CONGDON SCHEME OF REAPPORTIONMENT. 

Before me as I write is a great stack of newspaper clippings. They 
consist both of editorials and excerpts from news columns. All relate 
to the Congdon reapportionment measure. Before me also is a copy 
of the bil 1 itself. The papers and the bill do not tell the same c .tory. 

Almost every citizen who will read this analysis of the reapportion- 
ment situation will already have had the newspaper view, which was 
not an honest or just interpretation. With the exception of the Minne- 
apolis Daily News, nearly every large paper in Minneapolis, St. Paul, 
and Duluth deliberately, and designedly, I believe, misrepresented the 
scope and scheme of the Congdon bill. The modern manipulation of 
public opinion for corporation purposes probably never had a better illus- 
tration than in this attempt on the part of the press to force through 
the legislature a reapportionment bill favoring the special interests of 
Minnesota. 

The press asserted that the brewery influence was against the Cong- 
don bill; the bill itself shows that the brewery combine would have been 
benefited by its enactment. The press paraded the measure before the 
people as one in harmony with the spirit and letter of the constitution, 
which provides that reapportionment shall be upon a basis of popula- 
tion, while the provisions of the bill proves that it was full of inequalities 
as unfair as those it was intended to correct. The press maligned and im- 
pugned such members as Senators Lende and Haycraft, who bore the 
brunt of the battle against it, whereas they should have been credited 
with the most patriotic intentions. In brief, the almost omnipotent 
power of the press was employed to, deceive the people and misdirect 
public oninion in behalf of a reapportionment scheme which would have 
operated primarily to perpetuate the influence of the steel trust in state 
politics. 

The bill seemingly was drawn: (1) to safeguard the interest of the 
steel trust; (2) to benefit the brewers; and (3) to get votes enough to 
pass the measure. These considerations obviously overshadowed any 
desire to reapportion in the interest of the people or on a basis of popu- 
lation. Let us study the measure from these view points. 

1. The Steel Trust. — Under the Congdon scheme of reapportion- 
ment the iron ore interests would have been practically certain of an 
anti-tonnage tax legislature for years to come. To accomplish this, 
control of only one branch was necessary and the Senate was the one 
selected for this purpose. The Congdon bill eliminated eight Senators 
from the First, Second and Third congressional districts — tonnage tax 
territory. Two of these were provided for by cutting down the total 
number of Senators from 63 to 61; five of them were given to Minne- 
apolis, St. Paul, and St. Louis county — anti-tonnage tax territory; and 
districts were so manipulated that only the remaining one went into the 
over-populated Eighth and Ninth districts, and in such a way that only 
half of that one Senator would be in tonnage tax territory. 

No one could find any fault with the decreased Senatorial repre- 
sentation in southern Minnesota if a fair share of it had gone to the 
agricultural sections of the north. This is what actually happened: 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 71 

St. Louis county with a population of 163,270 was given an increase 
of two Senators, making a total of five. The five big districts in north- 
western Minnesota represented by Senators Sagene^, Marden, Saugstad, 
Hanson, and Sundberg, with a population of 215,757, were given an 
increase of only half of one Senator by the removal of Beltrami county 
with a population of 19,337 from the empire comprising Senator Han- 
son's district. This left Senators Sundberg, Hanson, Saugstad, Sageng, 
and Marden. in tonnage tax territory, to represent 196,420, while the 
same number of Senators in St. Louis county would represent 163,270 
people. 

But that does not begin to express the difference. The population 
of St Louis county is swelled many thousands by the unnaturalized 
foreigners from southern Europe employed on the Range. Expressed 
in citizenship the inequality is much more than doubled. The total num- 
ber of votes cast for all candidates for State Senator in St. Louis county 
at the last election, according to the Blue Book, was 14,026. The total 
number of votes cast for the five Senators from northwestern Minne- 
sota in the districts given to them in the Congdon bill was 30,884. 

Another vicious feature of the Congdon bill was the gerrymandering 
of the districts in St. Louis county. The five districts were manipulated 
into "shoe string" shape, in order to apportion the city of Duluth among 
them. This was to safeguard the steel trust in its own dooryard. Du- 
luth is beginning to manifest signs of insurgency and it was feared that 
progressives might be elected regularly from that city, so "the Zenith 
City" was parcelled out, with enough of the Range in each district to 
make them all "safe." 

2. The Brewery Combine. — The newspaper claim that the brewery 
influence was against reapportionment is ridiculous. The press reasoned 
and asked the people to believe that because the brewery combine al- 
ready had an anti-county option Senate, they would not care to face a 
reversal of that situation through an election, the result of reapportion- 
ment, in two years. On the contrary, the brewers consider decades, and 
not bienniums. They saw an opportunity to so redistrict the state as 
to lessen the chances of county option for years to come. But the brew- 
ery combine so subtly masked its moves in this connection, and was 
given such skillful and persistent aid by the large newspapers, that the 
county option element, both in and out of the legislature, was deceived 
into the belief that the Congdon scheme of reapportionment was in the 
interest of the anti-saloon element. 

Like the steel trust, the brewery combine would be satisfied with 
the control of one branch of the legislature. They, too, evidently con- 
sidered the Senate sufficient. Let us see how the Congdon bill would 
have affected the Senate, from a county option point of view. 

The First, Second, and Third Congressional districts lost eight Sen- 
ators. These three districts had twenty-five Senators before. On the 
question of county option they stood seven for to eighteen against. 
Was it accidental that under the Congdon bill districts were so manipu- 
lated that in all probability five of the seven county option Senators 
would be eliminated? And does that bear out the oft repeated, over 
emphasized, consolidated newspaper claim that the brewers were opposed 
to reapportionment? 

Elimination No. 1. — Julius E. Haycraft, county optionist, represent- 
ing the Twelfth district, comprising the counties of Watonwan and 
Jackson, would have been succeeded by an anti-county optionist. The 
story of that bit of gerrymandering is doubly and deeply significant. 
It also involved one other adjoining district. 

As it was drawn and presented to the House, the Congdon bill left 
the Watonwan-Martin district as it was with one Senator for the district 



72 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 



and a House member for each of the two counties, only its number was 
changed to Nine. The counties of Jackson. Cottonwood, and Murray 
were placed in another district, No. 10, with one Senator and two Repre- 
sentatives elected at large. The sentiment of one of these five counties, 
Watonwan, was strongly for county option; the other four were anti- 
county option territory. As the Congdon bill was first presented the 
Watonwan-Martin district would with almost absolute certainty have 
elected a county option Senator and one county option Representative. 
Now note what was done at the eleventh hour. 

On February 21st, when the Congdon bill Was made a special order 
in the House, the administration had an iron-clad organization back of 
it. A big majority of the whole House membership had agreed to vote 
down every attempt to change the measure by amendment. Congdon 
was in command. But obviously, at the last minute, it was discovered 
that they were overlooking an opportunity to eliminate a couple of 
county optionists, so he himself proposed an amendment changing dis- 
tricts Nos. 9 and 10. What follows is an exact copy from the House 
Journal, pages 5 and 6 of the 33d day: 

"Mr. Congdon moved to amend H. F. No. 477 by striking out lines 
ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and seventeen of 
page three of the original bill, being lines forty-four to forty-nine in- 
clusive, of page three of the printed bill, and inserting in lieu thereof 
the following: 

"The Ninth district shall be composed of the Counties of Martin 
and Jackson and shall be entitled to elect one Senator and two Rep- 
resentatives. 

"The representative districts shall be divided as follows: 

"The County of Martin shall constitute one district and shall be 
entitled to elect one Representative. 

"The County of Jackson shall constitute one district and shall be 
entitled to elect one Representative. 

"And also by striking out lines nineteen, twenty and twenty-one of 
the original bill, being lines fifty-one and fifty-two of the printed bill 
and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 

' The Tenth district shall be composed of the Counties of Watonwan, 
Cottonwood and Murray and shall be entitled to elect one Senator and 
two Representatives. 

"The question being taken on the adoption of the amendment. 

"And the roll being called there were yeas 73 and nays 38, as fol- 
lows: 

"Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Aker 


Herzberg 


Mattson 


Sampson 


Anderson, And. 


Hillman 


Minette 


Schwartz 


Anderson, J. J. 


Hurley 


Moriarity 


Snooner 


Borgen 


Jolinek 


Nelson, A. 


Stone, C. E. 


Bouck 


Johnson, J. T. 


Nolan 


Stone, W. T. 


Brown, G. W. 


Just 


Nye 


Sulerud 


Brown. L. D. 


Keofe 


O'Brien 


Sullivan 


Campbell 


Kelly 


O'Neill 


Thielen 


Clarke 


Knapp 


Orr 


Untiodt 


Congdon 


Knoeland 


Palmer 


Utecht 


Dunn, R. C. 


Knutson 


Perry 


Virtue 


EdAvards 


Kunze 


Peterson, 0. 


Warner, C. H. 


Ferguson 


Lennon 


Pfaender 


Washburn 


Fowler 


Li rd berg 


Putnam 


Webb 


Fuehs 


Lundeen 


Ribenack 


Wescott 


Greene 


T ydiard 


Rice 


White 


Hauge 


MrDonald 


Rines 


Wisniewski 


Heaiy 


McKonzie 


Robertson 


Speaker H. H. Dunn 


Henion 


McNeil 


Saggau 





THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 73 

"Those who voted in the negative were: 

Anderson, A. V. Frankson Lee, J. F. Peterson, A. ,T. 

Booth royd Hsiffton Lee, S. N. Peterson, J, E. 

Bnrnqiiist Harding Libera Reed 

Christie Holmberg McMartin Roliinson 

Conley Holten Mettling Rnstad 

Crane Hopkins Morton Skartnm 

Davies Johnson, C. B. Nelson, H. Voxland 

Davis Jolmson, J. N. Nygren Warner, E. 

Denzer Klemer Papke 

Farley Lee, I. J. Fetors 

"So the amendment was adopted." 

Joseph Davies vigorously opposed this amendment. In advocating 
the change, Mr. Congdon said on the floor of the House, that it was 
made because a majority of the members in the districts affected desired 
it; that otherwise the amendment would not have been offered. The 
five members from the counties involved were: Joseph Davies, Waton- 
wan; H. Nelson, Murray; E. Warner, Cottonwood; Henry Untiedt, Jack- 
son, and H. A. Saggau, Martin. A moment later, as will be seen by the 
roll call on the amendment, the first three of these, or a majority, voted 
against the change. Even after this fact was pointed out to Mr. Cong- 
don, which by the way was absolute proof of his insincerity in the 
matter, he refused to surrender the advantage for the special interests 
and a motion to reconsider the vote whereby his amendment was adopted 
was voted down. 

What was accomplished by this eleventh hour amendment, "proposed 
in compliance with the wishes of a majority" — who voted against it? By 
placing Jackson and Martin counties together it united two anti-county 
option counties and insured the election of one Senator and two Rep- 
resentatives favoring the antis. By placing Watonwan, county option, 
with two counties, Murray and Cottonwood, anti-county option, it prac- 
tically insured the election of a Senator in favor with the liquor element; 
and by taking Watonwan out of a Representative district by itself and 
compelling House candidates to run at large in the three counties, the 
Congdon amendment undoubtedly - eliminated a county option House 
member. Since county option members are usually progressive on all 
other issues, and the anti-county option members are inclined to work 
with the special interest combination on other issues, it will be seen 
that the steel trust was also concerned in the change. 

Elimination No. 2. — The Congdon bill placed Steele and Waseca 
counties together in a district. These counties were each in a district 
and were represented respectively by Senators Cashman and Moonan, 
both of whom voted for county option and made much trouble for the 
special interests on all other questions. The Congdon scheme would 
have eliminated one, and possibly both, of these progressives. 

Elimination No. 3. — Nobles county was represented by S. B. Bed- 
ford, a sturdy insurgent and county optionist. The Congdon bill joined 
his county with Pipestone and Rock counties, anti-county option terri- 
tory. 

Elimination No. 4. — Dodge county, represented by Peter J. Thoe, 
county optionist, was placed in a district with Mower, more populous 
and with an anti-county option Senator. 

Elimination No. 5. — Fillmore count}* - , with a county option Senator, 
but so evenly divided that it elected a House member on each side of 
the question, was joined with Houston county, represented by an anti- 
county option Senator. 

All of the foregoing relates to the changes in the First, Second, and 
Third congressional districts. In that territory the Congdon bill elimin- 
ated eight Senators and in all probability five of them would have been 



74 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

for county option and progressive principles generally. That such a 
marked advantage should have been given to the special interests does 
not seem accidental when one considers those three congressional dis- 
tricts had only seven county option Senators out of a total of twenty-five. 
The comparison might be continued. For example, Kandiyohi and 
Meeker counties, each with a county option Senator, were placed in a 
district together. And the failure to give the over-populated districts 
in northwestern Minnesota the representation to which they were en- 
titled operated in favor of the brewery combine, as it did the steel trust 
and other special interests. 

3. To Get Votes. — After these principal special interest considera- 
tions, which have been suggested, instead of observing the population 
basis about which the opinion moulding agencies shouted so loudly and 
so long, the Congdon bill was so drafted as to minimize the opposition 
and secure enough votes for its passage. On this point, Senator Hay- 
craft said: 

"I doubt not, with my own county, with a trifle less than twelve 
thousand people, that if I would vote for this bill I could have a Senator- 
ial district in that county alone. This district was rearranged a little 
different than it was first put in here. That was to suit the members in 
the House. The night before the special order in the House a change 
was made and that change was made upon the floor of the House. 
Five House members in this state were the only ones affected by that 
change in the House, and when the roll was called three of the five, a 
majority, voted against the change, there were only two in favor of it, and 
the will of the majority was disregarded and my district was outraged. 
Two reasons existed for that change. One man in the House claimed 
control of a bunch of votes, six in number, and he agreed to and did 
deliver those votes for that bill. The other reason was to put myself 
in the position of going before this Committee and asking to have the 
bill changed back to where it was before my district was outraged, in 
order that it might be granted me.. Arguing, then I could not in all 
fairness oppose the bill. Let me say to you that that scheme so far as 
I am concerned did not work." 

W. A. Harding, in a scathing attack upon the iniquities of the Cong- 
don bill, told of how his own district, Faribault county, had first been 
placed with Martin county, but later left by itself, evidently with the 
expectation that he would be placated and not fight the measure. Con- 
tinuing he said: 

"I do not know that Faribault county with less than 20.000 popula- 
tion was made a district by itself as a sop for me to keep quiet, but I 
do know that the realignment was made to placate some others and se- 
cure another vote or two for the bill. This bill was framed on the 
plan of taking district by district and pleasing as many as possible in 
each district without any particular disposition to elaborate on what are 
the changes elsewhere or general effects throughout the whole state, 
The developments here on the floor of the House an hour ago when 
that amendment forcing a chang-e in the Second congressional district 
was adopted proves this assertion absolutely true. The amendment to 
the bill carried with it the assurance of six democratic votes instead of 
two or possibly three as the former change had done, so it went through 
rough shod over the protest of those directly affected." 

Note these inequalities in the Congdon bill: 

District and Counties. Population No. of Senators 

49, Ottertail 46.036 1 

7, Faribault 19,949 1 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 75 

59, Pennington, Red Lake, Clearwater, 

Mahnomen and Norman — an empire 39,501 

45, Grant, Stevens and Traverse 27,456 

61, Kittson, Marshall and Roseau 37,345 

5, Freeborn 22,282 

43, Stearns 47,733 

17, Dakota 25,171 

These few comparisons are sufficient to prove that the over-adver- 
tised basis of population was not observed when it served the special 
interests or brought votes for the bill to ignore it. Judging the Cong- 
don scheme by the voting strength of the different districts shows even 
greater inequities. I quote from Senator Lende's argument: 

"There is one peculiar thing that has come to my notice during 
the progress of this debate. Usually when a bill comes before the 
Senate the men who oppose the measure must stand upon this floor and 
defend their position, but in this instance the case is reversed. Those in 
favor of this bill are defending it to the best of their ability against the 
■indictment brought against it, while those opposed to the bill are simply 
presenting to this Senate the case in behalf of the people of the State 
of Minnesota. 

"Let us analyze this Congdon bill. We proceed now, not upon a 
basis of population, but upon the next best basis, the number of votes 
cast in each district. By the provisions of this bill the Senate is de- 
creased in number from sixty-three to sixty-one. Representation is 
taken from Southern Minnesota supposedly to be given to the Northern 
part of the State which has been clamoring for more representation, but 
in reality the Northern part of the State outside of what may be called 
the iron belt, under this Congdon outrage, is given the magnanimous in- 
crease of one-half of one Senator. By examining the returns of the last 
election you will find that the districts of Southern Minnesota have 
more votes than most of the districts in Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. 
Louis counties. Yet, representation must be taken from the Southern 
part of the State and given to these three counties. The same is true of 
the districts in northwestern Minnesota. Still only two districts get in- 
creased representation while the others remain unchanged. 

"Let us now compare the different districts. The Senator from 
the Thirty-eighth District (Senator L'Herault) comes into the Senate 
with a vote of 1,616. The combined vote in his district at the last elec- 
tion was 2,742. I ran without opposition in my district and I received 
2,120 votes more than all three of those candidates put together, or to 
put it in another way, those three men togethei got only 348 votes more 
than the registered number of votes in Dodge county, the smallest 
county in the State. The following Senators have received in their 
districts more votes than the Senator from the Thirty-eighth (Senator 
L'Herault), namely: Senators Duxbury, McGrath. L. O. Cooke, C. F. 
Cook, Nelson, Stebbins, Cashman, Anderson, Works, Putnam, Hay- 
craft, Olson, Bedford, Dale, Oague, Murray, Peterson, Donaldson, Klein, 
Coller, Weis, Glotzbach, Rockne, Poehler, Odell and myself." 

Senator Lende next compared all the other districts in Hennepin 
and Ramsey counties, and proceeded: 

"Next we come to St. Louis county. I well remember the state- 
ments of the Senator from St. Louis county, who preceded me (Senator 
Boyle). On the 2nd day of February he made the statement that he 
represented upon the floor of this Senate something like 87,000 people; 
the people of his district having only one-fifth the representation in 
this Senate that the people of Dodge county had, represented by Senator 
Thoe. Let us consider his district. Senator Boyle comes here with 



76 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

5.144 votes. The combined votes of the two men running against each 
other were 7,223 votes, or 582 votes less than the registered number 
of votes in my district, and 2,312 votes less than the combined votes in 
Senator Hanson's district. 

"From the Fiftieth District Senator Pugh comes here with 1,649 
votes, elected from St. Louis county upon the issue of reapportionment. 
Think of it! On that important issue of reapportionment and just repre- 
sentation upon this floor, he is elected by 1,649 votes! Isn't it an out- 
rage not to be granted more representation? 

"Senator Pugh ran with opposition and the two together got 2,639 
votes, 913 votes less than Senator Cashman. The two together got 
1,667 votes less than Senator Gunderson. The two of them together 
got 638 votes less than the Senator from Kandiyohi (Senator Odell), 
or 794 votes less than the Senator from Meeker (Senator Peterson). 
Kandiyohi and Meeker must be reduced, but the Fiftieth district must 
be increased. Is this fair? I must not forget my little friend, the 
Senator from Dodge (Senator Thoe). The combined votes in Senator 
Pugh's district were only 245 more than the registered number of votes 
of Dodge county, the smallest county in the state. 

"Now we come to Senator Hanson's district. Senator Hanson's com- 
bined vote is 9,545 votes. The combined vote of Senator Gunn and his 
opponent is 7,925. Senator Hanson today represents 9,550 combined 
votes and he is given the magnificent concession of one-half of one 
Senator. Senator Gunn with 7.900 votes representing today the counties 
of Carlton, Aitkin, Cass, Itasca and Koochiching, with some 1,500 less 
than Hanson's district, is given a senator and a half. Is there any 
justice in that? I can conceive of only one reason why the Senator 
from Itasca (Senator Gunn) is given a senator and a half, and that is 
because it is pretty close to the west line of St. Louis county and near 
the operations of the United States Steel Corporation. 

"Senators Boyle, Pugh, and Cheadle come upon the floor of this 
Senate with a combined vote of 14,027, and they are given two more 
Senators. Under the new bill five senators would represent 14,027 votes 
which means that each senator would have the honor of representing 
on this floor the enormous number of 2,805 votes. The districts repre- 
sented by Senators Hanson and Gunn get one senator together, three 
senators to represent 17,470 votes, or each senator renresenting 5.823 
votes. In St. Louis county each senator representing 2,805 votes and in 
these other counties each senator representing 5.823 votes. 

"I am firm in the conviction that this bill is one of the most vicious 
and outrageous bills which was ever presented to any legislature. Talk 
about this cry for reapportionment! I am in favor of reapportionment 
and I sincerely hope that a bill can be drafted which will do justice 
to the people up north. This Congdon bill has given to our friends in 
the north, in order to ffet their votes for this bill, only the crumbs which 
fell from the overloaded table. When I listen to the clarion call for 
reapportionment coming from the people of the north, when I read the 
Republican and Democratic nlatforms upon the question of reapportion- 
ment, and when I analyze the vicious and outrageous provisions of this 
Cons-don bill, I am forced to exclaim that 'The voice is Jacob's voice, 
but the hands are the hands of Esau.' 

"Under the present law, and at this time the counties of Hennepin, 
Ramsey, and St. Louis are represented up.on this floor by fifteen senators, 
less than one-fourth of the number of members of this Senate. Under 
the new bill, if this bill should become a law, they would be represented 
unon the floor of this Senate by twenty men, or one-third of the Senate. 
Think of it, — one-third of the members of this body would mean practi- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 77 

cally to surrender entirely the agricultural part of the state, the greatest 
and best part of the state, to the three counties. 

"The men up north have not been treated right in this bill. It is 
not a just reapportionment. The bill has concentrated all of its efforts 
to centralizing the power in these three counties (Hennepin, Ramsey, 
and St. Louis). Is there any wonder that we are opposed to surrender- 
ing the birth-rights of the people of this state to this Congdon bill and 
to put it in plain English, to the United States Steel Corporation." 

On this point I want to quote from Julius E. Haycraft, a county 
optionist and One of the most consistent insurgents in the Senate. He 
began his speech against the Congdon bill by saying: 

"There has grown up in this state quite a cry for reapportionment. 
An organization was perfected in the north known as the Northern 
Minnesota Development Association, with a Secretary and a President, 
who devote their entire time to this matter. By whom these officers 
are employed and by whom they are paid I do not know, hence I make 
no comments, but the systematic reapportionment scheme which they 
have carried out has not been a fair one. 

"I doubt if one thousand people in the State of Minnesota out of 
the two million and over realize the real intent and purport of the pres- 
ent bill. Perhaps a majority of the members of this body thought that 
reapportionment meant to render due justice to the great agricultural 
section of the north. It was carefully guarded that the great counties 
of Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis should be the chief beneficiaries of 
this bill, yet that is exactly what occurred when the bill was drawn. 
Not only has that agitation for reapportionment been spread over this 
state through a systematic campaign, but every method of maligning the 
members of this Senate in advance, has been resorted to. We have come 
down here and upon no cause at all have been maligned and libeled for 
what we might or might not do. That thing has gone on here from 
day to day with the idea of drawing any kind of a bill and pushing 
it through the House and the Senate irrespective of what it did in the 
way of reapportionment." 

The following comparisons, from a speech in the House by W. A. 
Harding, indicate some of the changes attempted in the Congdon bill: 

The First District Had 10 Senators and 16 Representatives 

Congdon Bill Gave First Dist 6 Senators and 13 Representatives 

A Loss of 4 Senators and 3 Representatives 

Second District Had 6 Senators and 11 Representatives 

Congdon Bill Gave Second Dist.... 5 Senators and 10 Representatives 

A Loss of 1 Senator and 1 Representative 

Third District Had 9 Senators and 14 Representatives 

Congdon Bill Gave Third Dist 6 Senators and 10 Representatives 

A loss of 3 Senators and 4 Representatives 

Under the Congdon bill the First, Second, and Third Congressional 
Districts lost eight Senators and eight Representatives. What was done 
with them? 

The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Eighth, outside of St. Louis county, 
comprising about two-thirds of the area of the state, and the section 
which stood most in need of reapportionment, gained in the Congdon 
bill only one Senator and six Representatives, the latter being the num- 
ber of House members added under the new plan. Even that does not 



78 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

express the unfairness of the Congdon scheme, for in reality only a half 
a Senator went to the Ninth district in anti-steel trust territory, the 
other one-half being given to Senator Gunn's district which adjoined 
St. Louis county and could be counted as "safe" for the iron ore interests. 
The eight Senators and eight Representatives lost to the First, Sec- 
ond, and Third districts were disposed of as follows: One Senator went 
to the northern county outside of St. Louis county, and the districts were 
so manipulated that the steel trust was not likely to suffer more than 
half a member; two were disposed of by cutting down the number of 
Senators; and the other five went to St. Louis,' Ramsey and Hennepin 
counties. 

The Congdon bill passed the House February 21st by the following 
vote: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Aker, Andrew Anderson, A. V. Anderson. 
J. J. Anderson, Bootliroyd, Borgen, Bouck, L. D. Brown, Bnrnquist, Campbell, Congdoi;, 
Converse, Davis, R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Ferguson, Fowler, Fuehs, Greene, Hafften, Hauge. 
Healy. Henion, Herzherg, Hillman, Holmberg, Holten, .Telinek. C. E. Johnson, J. N. John 
son, J. T. Johnson, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Knapp, Kneelnnd. Knutson, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. 
F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Lindberg, Lundeen, Lydiard, MacKenzie. McNeil, Mattson, 
Mettling, Minette, Morton, Nash, A. Nelson, Nolan, Nye, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer. Perry, 
A. J. Peterson, O. Peterson, Pfaendo.r, Putnam, Ribenack. Rice. Rines, Robertson, Saggau, 
Sampson. Skartum, Spooner, C. E. Stone, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Sullivan, Untiedt, Utecht. 
Virtue, Voxland, C. H. Warner, Washburn, Webb, White, Wisniewski, and Speaker H. H. 
Dunn — 85. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: G. W. Brown, Christie, Clarke, Conley, 
Crane, Davies, Denzer, Farley, Frankson, Harding, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hurley, Klemer, 
Libera, McDonald McMartin. Moriarity, H. Nelson, Nygren, Papke, Peters, J. E. Peterson, 
Reed, Robinson, Rustad, Schuler, Schwartz, Thielen, E. Warner, Wescott — 31. 

It was defeated in the Senate March 16th by the following vote: 

For the Consrdon Bill: Ahmann, Boyle, Cheadle, Denegre, Dunn, Dwinnell, Elwell, 
Fosseen, Froshaug, Gunderson, Gunn, Hackney, Hanson, C. D. Johnson, V. L. Johnson, 
Johnston, L'Herault, Pauly, Pugh, Rustad, Sageng, Saugstad, G. H. Sullivan, J. D. Sulli- 
van, Sundbergx Wallace, Wilson — 27. 

Against the Congdon Bill: Anderson, Bedford, Benson, Carpenter, Cashman, Clague, 
Ooller, C. F. Cook, L. O. Cooke, Dale, Donaldson, Duea, Duxbury, Glotzbach, Handlan, 
Haycraft, Klein, Lende, McGrath, Marden, Moonan, Murray, Nelson, Odell, Olson, Peterson, 
Poehler, Putnam, Rockne, Seballer, Stebbins, Swanson, Thoe, Van Hoven, Weis, Works — 36. 

» * * 

S. F. No. 360, by Senators Duxbury, Moonan, Haycraft, and We ; s, 
was introduced February 14th. It met the country vs. the city issue 
squarely by providing for a constitutional amendment limiting the num- 
ber of Senators any county could have. As amended in the House, it 
would have made it impossible for any subsequent reapportionment to 
give to either Ramsey, Hennepin, or St. Louis counties more than seven 
Senators, regardless of their population. The bill passed the House 
April 17th by the following vote: 

For the Seven-Senator Bill: Andrew Anderson, A. V. Anderson, Boothroyd, G. W. Brown, 
L. D. Brown, Christie, Conley, Converse, Crane, Davies, Denzer, Diessner, Edwards, Farley, 
Frankson, Hafften, Harding, Hauge, Henion, Herzherg. Hoffman, Holten, C. E. Johnson, 
J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Klemer, Knutson, I. J. Lee, S. N. Lee, 
Libera, Lindberg, McMartin, Minette, Moriarity, Morton, A. Nelson, Nygren, Papke, Peters. 
A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson. O. Peterson, Pfaender, Putnam, Reed, Robinson, Rustad, 
Saggau, Sampson, Schuler, Schwartz, Skartum, W. T. Stone, Sulerud. Untiedt, Utecht, 
Voxland, E. Warner, Wescott, Whiting, Wisniewski, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 65. 

Against S. F. No. 360: Aker, Borgen, Bouck, Burnquist, Campbell. Clarke, Congdon, 
Davis, R. C. Dunn, Ferguson, Fowler, Fuchs, Greene, Healy, Hillman, Holmberg, Hopkins, 
Hurley, Jelinek, Knapp, Kneeland, Kunze, J. F. Lee, Lennon, Lundeen, Lydiard, McDonald, 
MacKenzie, McNeil, Mattson, Nash, H. Nelson, Nolan, Nye, O'Brien, O'Neill. Orr, Palmer, 
Perry, Ribenack, Rice. Rines, Robertson, Spooner, C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Virtue, 
G. H. Warner, Washburn, Webb, White — 52. 

Then the bill went back to the Senate for concurrence and was 
finally repassed on the last day, after hours of spectacular controversy, 
as follows: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Ahmann, Anderson, Bedford, Benson, Car- 
penter, Cashman, Coller, C. F. Cook, L. O. Cooke, Dale, Donaldson, Duea, Duxbury, Fros- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 79 

bang, Glotzbach, Haycraft, Johnston, Klein, Lende, McGrath, Marden, Moonan, Murray, 
Nelson. Olson, Peterson, Poehler, Putnam, Rustad, Schaller, Stebbins, J. D. Sullivan, Thoe, 
Weis, Works — 35. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: Boyle, Cheadle, Clague, Denegre, Dunn, 
Dwinnell, El well, Fosseen, Gunderson, Gunn, Hackney, Handlan, Hanson, C. D. Johnson, 
V. L. Johnson, L'Herault, Odell, Pauly, Pugh, Roekne, Sageng, Saugstad, G. H. Sullivan, 
Sundberg, Swanson, Van Hoven, Wallace, Wilson — 28. 

• • * 

The Congdon scheme of reapportionment failed, but it served one 
useful purpose for the special interests. The fight, long drawn out, 
bitter and often spectacular, took up days of time in both branches, and 
fitted nicely into the general policy of delay. Two years before much 
of the session was given to anticipating mythical smells from "an Armour 
packing plant," which never materialized. But in this case, real odors 
might have developed. 



CHAPTER XIII. 
DULUTH AND THE TONNAGE TAX. 

H. F. No. 404 was the sequel of H. F. No. 477. As soon as the nature 
of the Congdon scheme of reapportionment was revealed, even before 
the bill was introduced, certain insurgents began to "back fire" with a 
bill imposing a tonnage tax on iron ore. 

It is safe to assert that this measure would not have been presented, 
had it not been for Mr. Congdon's attempt to ride, rough shod, over the 
progressives and railroad through the reapportionment bill described in 
the preceding chapter. By that I do not infer that those pushing the 
tonnage tax idea were insincere; but I think they realized that it was a 
hopeless fight and a waste of effort. It was the opinion of many that 
even though such a measure could be passed in both branches, it would 
be vetoed by the Governor. And later the impression that a Big Poli- 
tician might attempt to use this veto for personal purposes, helped to de- 
feat the bill in the House. 

H. F. No. 404, by Frankson, J. N. Johnson and Moriarity, was intro- 
duced February 9th and referred to the Committee on Taxes and Tax 
Laws. That committee, packed especially for that purpose, reported 
the bill for "indefinite postponement" on March 8th by a vote of sixteen 
to one, Henry A. Hoffman being the only member out of seventeen to 
sign the minority report. The real meaning of this action can best be 
understood when one considers that it was an attempt to "kill in com- 
mittee" a measure involving millions of dollars and of state-wide interest. 
To sustain the report of the sixteen meant that there would be no 
opportunity to change the bill by amendment or to get a direct vote upon 
it. I have no criticism of anyone who finally opposed the tonnage tax, 
many of its enemies being honestly against that method and principle 
of taxation, but there does not seem to be any justification for those 
who supported the Tax Committee in its Cannonistic treatment of the 
measure. An overwhelming majority of the House evidently took this 
same view, for they repudiated the sixteen and adopted the minority 
recommendation of Mr. Hoffman making H. F. No. 404 a special order 
for March 16th. 

When R. C Dunn. Chairman of the Committee on Taxes, moved that 
the majority report killing the tonnage tax bill in committee, be adopted, 
Thomas Frankson made a substitute motion that Mr. Hoffman's minority 
report be adopted, which carried by the following significant vote: 

To Sustain the One: Andrew Anderson, A. V. Anderson. J. J. Anderson, G. W. Brown, 
Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Conley, Converse, Crane, Davies. Denzer, Diessner, Edwards, 
Frankson, Greene, Hafften, Harding, Hauge, Herzberg, Holrnberg, Holten, Hopkins, C. E. 
Johnson. J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, Kelly, Klemer, Knntaon, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, 
S. N. Lee, Libera, Lindherg, Lundeen, McDonald. McMartin, McNeil, Mettling, Minette, Mor- 
ton. A. Nelson, H. Nelson, Nolan, Nygren, O'Brien, O'Neill, Palmer, Papke, Peters, A. J. 
Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Pfaender, Putnam. Reed, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, Samnson, 
Schuler. Schwartz, Skartum, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Untiedt, Utecht, E. Warner, Whiting, 
Wisniewski — 70. 

To Sustain the Sixteen: Aker, Borgen, Bouck, L. D. Brown, Clarke, Congdon, Davis, R. C. 
Dunn, Ferguson, Fowler, Fuchs, Healy, Hillman, Hurley, Jelinek, Knapp. Kneeland. Knnze, 
Lennon, Lvdiard, MacKenzie, Mattson, Moriarity, Nash, Nye, Orr, Perry, O. Peterson, 
Ribenack. Rice, Rires, Saggau, Spooner, C. E. Stone, Thielen, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Wash- 
burn, Webb, White and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 41. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 81 

It will be noted that J. J. Moriarity, one of the authors of the bill, 

oted with the organization. Mr. Moriarity had previously changed 

: ront on this bill, and had his name removed from the list of its authors. 

After a bitter fight on the day of the special order, March 16th, H. F. 

tfo. 404 was defeated decisively. The vote was as follows: 

For the Tonnage Tax: Andrew Anderson, A. V. Anderson, J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, 
ampbell, Conley, Converse, Crane, Davies, Diessner, Farley, Frankson, Hafften, Harding, 
lauge, Henion, Hoffman, Holmberg, Holton, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, 
Hemer, Knutson, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee. S. N. Lee, Lindberg, McMartin, Minette, A. Nelson, 
'apke, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Reed, Robertson, Robinson, Rustad, Sampson, 
>chuler, Schwartz, Skartum, Sulerud, Voxland, E. Warner, Wescott, Whiting — 48. 

Against the Tonnage Tax: Aker, Borgen, Bouek. G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Burnquist, 
Christie, Clarke, Congdon, Davis, Denzer, R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Ferguson, Fowler, Fuchs, 
Jreene, Healy, Hillman, Hopkins, Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe, Kelly, Knapp, Kneeland, 
£unze, Lennon, Libera, Lundeen, Lydiard, McDonald, MacKenzie, McNeil, Mattson, Mettliug* 
VJoriarity, Morton, Nash, H. Nelson, Nolan, Nye, Nygren, O'Brien, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, 
Perry, Peters, O. Peterson, Pfaender, Ribenack, Rice, Rines, Saggau, Spooner, C. E. Stone, 
W. T. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, C. H. Warner, Washburn, Webb, 
White, Wisniewski, Speaker H. H. Dunn— 70. 

Nine of the old members who voted against the Frankson-Johnson 
tonnage tax measure voted for the Bjorge bill on the same subject in 
the 1909 session. They were L. C. Spooner, Albert Pfaender, Geo. H. 
Mattson, Alex McNeil, F. L. Kelly, H. Nelson, G. H. Denzer, Jos. Peters 
and O. Peterson. 

Several unusual influences entered into that roll call. In previous 
sessions most of the supporters of the tonnage tax bill were progres- 
sives, and most of its enemies reactionaries. In this case "the lion and 
the lamb" were often found together against the measure. A few in- 
surgents, iike J. A. A. Burnquist, opposed the principle of taxation in- 
volved. Other progressives, like Andrew Davis, obeyed the sentiment 
of their districts in voting negatively. But the bulk of the progressive 
pposition came from two exceptional causes: 

First, the Veto Possibility. — It has already been hinted that some of 
the progressives were fearful that Governor Eberhart would not sign 
the bill, if it were passed. Later a story started which indicated that 
an "alumni coach" might profit in a political way by having the bill go 
through both branches and reach the veto stage. Accordingly, some 
may have regarded it as a duty to defeat the measure at the first oppor- 
tunity. 

Second, Progressives from St. Louis. — The 1911 session was the first 
in years in which "the Duluth delegation" in both House and Senate 
had not been solidly reactionary. They had stood with the brewery com- 
bine, the railroad ring and the special interests generally. Because they 
were universall}' "wrong" on all other fundamental and moral questions, 
the insurgents who had not made a personal study of the tonnage tax 
naturally reasoned that the St. Louis county members must be wrong 
also in their position on that question. Accordingly they refused to be 
influenced in the slightest degree by what the Duluth members said or 
did against the Bjorge bill. 

But at this session the situation was different. Although most of 
the Duluth delegation in the House were reactionary to the core and 
dominated by Mr. Congdon, there were exceptions. N. S. Hillman was 
an unvarying insurgent, and E. R. Ribenack had progressive inclinations 
and performed excellent service for his home city on local issues. In 
the Senate, Boyle and Cheadle were both progressive on all fundamen- 
tally democratic questions. Because of this fact, they developed large 
influence among the insurgent element, which had its effect on the ton- 
nage tax situation in the House. 

* * * 

The lesson of the 1911 session should not be lost upon Duluth and 



82 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

the iron range region. All that was accomplished for that section came 
through the influence of the few progressives in their delegations. Sen- 
ator Cheadle and Representative Ribenack were chiefly responsible for 
the enactment of the special law giving to Duluth the opportunity to 
escape from a local concern which had a practical monopoly of the elec- 
tric supply for the city. 

The failure of the reapportionment bill was due to the greed of the 
reactionaries back of it — they were seeking too much advantage for 
the special interests; as a result St. Louis county received nothing in 
that direction, and it was entitled to a great deal. 

The time has passed when even "a master of men" like Chester A. 
Congdon can dominate through the usual methods of combination. Mr. 
Congdon is of a splendid type. Intellectually, he was one of the strong-i 
est individuals in the legislature. But he sacrificed all his fine qualities 
and worked hand in hand with brewery representatives and professional 
politicians through all the session — associations for which superior men- 
tality and personal character could not atone in the eyes of the better 
class. He had the opportunity and the power to make the 1911 legisla- 
ture truly representative of the people, but instead he permitted, even 
aided, the re-establishment of the old alliance between the brewery 
combine and the other special interests. Duluth lost what would have 
been gained by a different course. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE FARRINGTON-FROSHAUG CONTEST. 

It is bad enough to win an election, Lorimer-like, by buying votes; 
it is immeasurably more immoral and more criminal to change an elec- 
tion after the votes have been cast and counted. This is the story of 
how the Minnesota State Senate was saved the disgrace of giving ap- 
proval to such ballot box tampering by only a single vote. 

The 56th Legislative District, comprising the counties of Swift and 
Big Stone, witnessed a Senatorial race among S. J. Froshaug, prohibi- 
tionist, Ray G. Farrington, democrat, and T. J. McElligott, republican. 
Froshaug won by a plurality of twenty-one votes over Farrington, who 
in turn led McElligott by a few votes. The "friends" of Farrington 
instituted a contest and the ballots were recounted, giving Farrington 
a plurality of twenty-two over Froshaug. Mr. McElligott was evidently 
not an issue with those who prepared for and prosecuted the recount, 
for his total did not differ materially from the figures of the first re- 
turns. The canvassing boards gave Froshaug 1,406, Farrington 1,385; 
in the recount Farrington had 1,393, Froshaug 1,371. The difference 
meant that a clean cut, independent, progressive member would be un- 
seated and his place in the Senate filled by a politician in every sense 
satisfactory to the brewery combine; but the change itself was not so 
serious or menacing as the fact of its accomplishment by the grossest, 
most palpable election frauds. 

All criminality should be considered from two viewpoints: (1) the 
motive, and (2) the method. The motive of Farrington's "friends" is 
obvious — the liquor element were enraged over the election of a party 
prohibitionist, especially in a district served by one of their most faith- 
ful followers, and they resorted to the only possible method, that of 
entering ballot boxes and deliberately altering enough ballots to re- 
verse the verdict of the voters. This was done in five precincts, Grace- 
ville, Clinton, Odessa, and Ortonville in Big Stone county, and Edison 
in Swift county, resulting as follows: 

Election Returns. Recount. 

Precinct. - Farrington. Froshaug. Farrington. Froshaug. 

Graceville 149 6 150 3 

Clinton 39 29 43 21 

Odessa 61 42 68 36 

Ortonville 238 81 236 73 

Edison 4 13 4 8 

Totals 491 171 501 141 

The gain for Farrington in these five precincts, where ballot boxes 
were entered and votes changed, was forty. 

Lieutenant-Governor Gordon appointed a Committee on Elections 
consisting of J. E. Haycraft, chairman; C. F. Cook, T. E. Cashman, F. 
E. Putnam, O. G. Dale. J. M. Hackney, James P. Boyle, Carl Wallace, 
and C. J. Gunderson. To this body was entrusted the task of investigat- 
ing this contest, which they did with a thoroughness and patriotic devo- 
tion to duty which has rarely been equalled by public servants any- 
where. For weeks they delved deeper and still more deeply into the case 
and finally, in the boxes themselves, found undisputable evidence of 
the fraud. If that committee had been even a trifle less conscientious 



84 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

and determined to get at the truth, the dastardly crime would have been 
condoned by the sanction of the Senate. After nearly a month and a 
half of investigation, a period of almost continuous personal work on 
the part of several members of the Elections Committee, a majority 
report, recommending that Dr. Froshaug retain his seat, was sent to 
the Senate February 15th. Much of the story is told in that report. I 
quote from that document: 

"From the evidence brought to the attention of your committee, 
the following combination of circumstances and conditions appear: 

"First. The character of the ballot boxes in all but one of these dis- 
puted precincts is shown to have been peculiar and different from boxes 
ordinarily used for the purpose intended, and boxes affording easy 
means of access to their contents. 

"Second. It appears that the care and custody of all but one of 
these ballot boxes was not as required by law, in one or two instances 
a ballot box not being in the care and custody of the legal custodian at 
all. 

"Third. The testimony shows that the character and custody of the 
ballot boxes in dispute was such as to afford ample opportunity for 
tampering w^ith the same. 

"Fourth. It appears from this testimony that when the ballot boxes 
were opened, the contents examined and the ballots recounted, extra- 
ordinary and exceptional conditions were found to exist in each box, 
discrepancies of an unusual and unnatural character, and discrepancies 
which have never been in any manner explained. It further appears 
that crosses were made on ballots by persons other than the voter vot- 
ing the ballot. 

"Fifth. It appears that there was an exceptional and extraordinary 
number of ballots double crossed for candidates for Senator, to an ex- 
tent making these five precincts differ abnormally from all other pre- 
cincts in the district. 

"Sixth. It is reasonable to presume that if these double crosses 
were placed thereon by the voter voting the ballot, the same conditions 
would have been found to exist in other offices for which there were 
two candidates on the same ballot, whereas an examination shows exactly 
the contrary to exist. 

"Seventh. Out of the remaining thirty-seven precincts in this dis- 
trict re-counted by the inspectors, no irregularities such as stated above 
were found to exist at all, and this fact is conceded by both parties to 
this contest. That one of these conditions might exist alone and yet 
admit of explanation may be conceded; but that all of these conditions 
should exist together and concur cannot be explained or reconciled. 
The chain of circumstances proven by the existence and concurence of 
these unusual, abnormal conditions constitutes almost absolute proof that 
these ballots and ballot boxes have not only not been properly kept, 
but in fact have been tampered with; and such testimony and chain 
of circumstances prohibit a finding which could affect the correctness 
of the original returns." 

The majority report of the Elections Committee considered separ- 
ately each of the five precincts in which ballots had been tampered 
with, describing the conditions and changes as follows: 

"Odessa. — The ballot box used in this precinct was a wooden box, 
lid on hinges, locked in front with a padlock, sealed with paper and 
sealing wax. This box was kept under the stage in the village hall. 
This hall was used for entertainments, lectures, dances, band practice, 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 85 

and public functions in general. The marshal had a key to the build- 
ing, as did also another. The apartment under the stage containing the 
box was not locked. The building was sometimes left unlocked for the 
use of the band boys, and left with no one in care of it. The custodian 
had no key to the building. He kept the township seal, an impression 
of which was placed upon the sealing wax when the box was locked 
and sealed on the night of election, in his desk at home, in which desk 
he kept township records, which records were examined by people other 
than custodian and family. 

"The judges and clerks of election all testified before your Commit- 
tee. It is shown from this testimony that one or two ballots were 
double crossed for senator, meaning by double crossed, where two candi- 
dates for senator were attempted to be voted for. The people testifying 
included the judge who read the ballots and the judge who watched him 
read them. 

"When the box was opened by your committee and the ballots re- 
counted, it was found that six ballots were double crossed for senator, 
while on the contested election for representative there were none 
double crossed. There were four double crossed for sheriff and two ap- 
parently in dispute. The original count in this precinct gave Froshaug 42, 
Farrington 61, and McElligott 18. The recount showed Froshaug 36, 
Farrington 68, and McElligott 16. Froshaug lost six votes, McElligott 
two, and Farrington gained seven. There was one Froshaug ballot 
with the initials D. A. on the bottom thereof, and one with the initials 
M. F." 

The returns of the canvassing board showed that several of those 
voting at the November election did not vote for any candidate for 
State Senator; but the recount showed every ballot marked for that 
office. Senators Haycraft and Gunderson of the Committee on Elec- 
tions made a careful inspection of all the ballots in this precinct to ex- 
plain the discrepancy. They first placed the ballots in three piles — 
Farrington's in one, Froshaug's in another, and McElligott's in a third. 
Then they studied each for signs of fraud. In the Farrington pile they 
found seven with an X after his name which had obviously not been 
marked by the same person who made the other X's upon the ballot. 
In addition to being different from the regular marks of the voter, all 
of the seven — the number not originally voted for State Senator in that 
village and the number which Farrington gained in that precinct — were 
of similar style, as though written by the same person. 

"Graceville. — The ballot box in this precinct was a fifty-pound lard 
can made of tin, had one hinge in the back and a hasp in the front. It 
locked with a padlock. The evidence shows that after the ballots were 
counted by the judges on the night of election, they were placed in this 
ballot box and the box closed and locked. A strip of paper attached 
to the can near the hinge was drawn across the top and attached to 
the can near the lock, both ends being sealed with sealing wax, — that the 
sealing wax and paper failed to adhere to one side. The clerk, Williams, 
testifies that the paper failed to adhere to the can probably on the hinged 
side. Inspector Thornton testifies that the paper was loose on the lock 
side and that when he opened the box to recount the ballots, he opened 
the same without breaking the paper. 

"This box was kept in a vault in the village hall to which vault the 
custodian Williams and at least one other person, a Judge McDonald, 
knew the combination. It also appears that the members of the village 
council had access to the room in which the vault was situated. Such 
was the character of the box and such was the character of its care 
and custody. 



86 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

"We next considered the condition of affairs when the box was 
opened. When the box was opened by your committee, it was found 
upon the recount that Froshaug had six votes, Farrington 150, and Mc- 
Elligott 44, whereas on the original count Froshaug had 9, Farrington 
149, and McEliigott 44. It appears that Froshaug lost 3 votes, or one- 
third of his entire vote on his original count, Farrington gained 1 vote, 
while McElligott's was the same. There were two ballots upon which 
two candidates for Senator had been crossed. There were two Froshaug 
ballots with the initials E. T. S. on the bottom thereof, one Farrington 
ballot with the name Paul Mahoney on the back thereof, and one with 
the initials J. K. on the back thereof." 

"Ortonville. — The box used in this precinct was a peculiar box — a 
round metal box with a rod extending up in the center from the bottom 
of the box, with a thread on the end of the rod. The lid was fastened 
down by the rod, extended through a hole in the center of the lid, upon 
which a peculiar piece of iron with handle was screwed onto the rod, 
holding the lid down. It was then locked with two ordinary padlocks. 
The box was not sealed in any manner. It was kept in the room of 
the custodian, Matthews. The keys and the padlocks were kept in an 
ordinary envelope in the unlocked desk of the custodian in the same 
room. Custodian was a few times away from his room when it was 
not locked, once being called to Graceville upon a sort of fictitious, un- 
explained telephone message for a purpose in which it was known 
custodian was interested, l>ut which trip when so made proved to be of 
no consequence for anybody, the man agreeing over the telephone to 
meet him failing to appear. 

"The judges and clerks of election testified that there were three 
or four double crossed ballots for Senator. It also appears that a young 
man occupied the room with the custodian in which the ballot box 
was kept. 

"The original count in this precinct was Froshaug 81, Farrington 
238, McEliigott 31. When the box was opened and the contents ex- 
amined and the ballots recounted, it was found that Froshaug had 73 
votes, Farrington 236, and McEliigott 31; McElligott's vote remaining 
the same, Farrington losing two and Froshaug losing eight. In this 
precinct thirteen ballots were found double crossed for Senator. Upon 
examination of these ballots, it conclusively appears that some of the 
double crossed ballots for Senator had one of the crosses placed thereon 
by some person other than the voter voting the ballot. This also ap- 
pears in the precincts of Clinton and Odessa. While there was the un- 
usual and unreasonable number of thirteen ballots double crossed for 
Senator, thereby being absolutely inconsistent with the testimony of 
the judges of election, there was only one ballot double crossed for 
sheriff, a hotly contested election, and none whatever double crossed 
on the contest for Representatives. Ortonville is contestant's home 
precinct." 

The telephone message referred to in the report seemed full of 
mystery and significance. Mr. Matthews, the custodian of the Ortonville 
ballot box, was summoned to Graceville, by telephone, to meet a stranger 
on a matter of business in which he was interested. Upon arriving in 
Graceville he discovered that no such man was awaiting him there. 
The trip took him. away from his office, where the ballot box was kept, 
for a part of one day and night. Later it was found that instead of 
coming from Graceville, as Mr. Matthews was led to believe, the fake 
telephone message had been sent from a public booth in the Saint Paul 
Hotel. The logical conclusion is that some one had telephoned from 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 87 

St. Paul for the purpose of getting Mr. Matthews out of town and giv- 
ing the Ortonville artists an opportunity to open the ballot box in his 
absence. 

If you will turn to the first inside page of the cover you will see evi- 
dence that the Ortonville box was opened and tampered with, either then 
or at some other time before the recount. Two sides of an Ortonville 
ballot were photographed and they tell the story almost as well as does 
the ballot itself. Only one end of the front and back of this ballot is 
shown in the cut. Note the peculiar, trembly appearance of the X placed 
after the name of S. J. Froshaug, which is almost identically the same 
as all the other X's on the ballot, except the much larger and in every 
way different one placed after the name of Ray G. Farrington. Obviously 
that X was made when the box was opened, for the purpose of invalidat- 
ing the ballot and throwing out a vote for Froshaug, which, of course, 
it did. 

But even more striking proof of fraud is shown by the back of this 
particular ballot. The voter had evidently marked his ballot writing 
on a rough board surface, which, together with unusual pressure of the 
pencil, made an impression clear through the ballot. On the back of 
that ballot every X is plainly visible, excepting only the extra X which 
invalidated it, which indicates that that X was not made by the same 
person and under the same conditions as the others. Those back side 
impressions were so plain that it was possible to photograph most of 
them, as is shown in the cut. The corresponding number, 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 
etc., show the original X's and where the same ones are impressed on 
the back of the ballot. The O's show the spurious X on the front and 
the corresponding place on the back of the ballot where there is not 
the slightest sign of it. Other ballots might have been photographed 
to testify to similar signs of tampering. 

"Clinton. — This box was a wooden box and not locked — in fact, it 
never had a lock, being fastened with a nail — the cover fastened with 
hinges. It was sealed with paper and sealing wax in front, the paper 
extending over the lid. The clerk was not present when the box was 
sealed, but the witness, Blair, was present when it was sealed and fas- 
tened with a nail as aforesaid. This box was kept in a vacant store 
building used by J. D. Ross for the keeping of extras to machinery. The 
store building was a frame building on Main street in the village of 
Clinton. Mr. Ross and his two sons had keys to the doors. There were 
two windows in the rear of the building. The building was an old one — 
one of the oldest in town. The box was in plain sight. 

"It appears from the returns and the testimony of the election offi- 
cials that there were 80 votes cast in this precinct and 79 of them cast 
for^ Senator, the original count being Froshaug 29, Farrington 39, Mc- 
Elligott 11. When the box was opened and the contents examined and 
ballots counted by your committee, it was found that Froshaug had 21, 
a loss of 8 votes, McElligott 10, a loss of one vote, and Farrington 43, 
a gain of four votes. There were also found six ballots upon which two 
candidates for Senator had been crossed. There were two other offices 
contested in Big Stone county, viz.: representative to legislature and 
sheriff. There were two ballots upon which two candidates for sheriff 
had been crossed, but none where two candidates for representative 
had been voted for." 

"Edison. — The box in this precinct was an ordinary metal box, lid 
on hinges, fastened in front with an ordinary padlock. This box was 
produced before the inspectors at Benson, Minnesota, last December, by 
the custodian, Fred Hallaway, who had kept it at his house. It was 



88 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

sealed and locked. The box was brought by the custodian to Benson 
and taken to the Aldrich hotel shortly before midnight preceding the 
day on which it was recounted. It was placed in the office room of the 
hotel near the cigar case during the night. It had two coverings of paper 
around it and the string wrapped around the paper in a particular man- 
ner. When the custodian reached the box the following morning, to 
take it to the court house to be recounted, he immediately discovered 
that the box had been tampered with, the first thing being noticed was 
that the string was tied around the box in a different manner. He made 
this known to everybody who cared to hear there in the office of the 
hotel, including the attorneys for contestee and one Thomas B. Boyle, 
the custodian of the ballot box from another precinct in Swift county. 
The matter was talked about the hotel, the box taken to the court 
house, and the statements relative to its tampering reiterated in the 
presence of all there, including contestant. When the papers were re- 
moved from the box, the seal was found to be broken. It conclusively 
appears to your committee that this box had been opened the night 
preceding the recount at Benson. 

"The clerk and one of the judges of election testified that in this 
precinct there was one ballot double crossed for Senator, and which 
was not counted, there being 45 votes cast and 44 counted for Senator. 

"When the box was opened by your committee and the contents 
noted and the ballots counted, there were found to be six ballots double 
crossed for Senator, five more than were double crossed on the original 
count as shown by the evidence of the clerk and judge of election, and 
it is significant that contestee lost just five votes, and these ballots 
so double crossed for Senator are all ballots upon which a cross appears 
opposite to the. name of contestee. The original count in this precinct 
showed 13 votes for Froshaug, 27 for McElligott, and four for Farring- 
ton. The recount showed Farrington's the same, but Froshaug's eight, 
a loss of five votes, losing about 40 per cent of his entire vote. The 
offices in Swift county for which there were more than one candidate 
were the offices of Representative, Treasurer, Sheriff, and County At- 
torney, and it appears there was a sharp contest in this precinct for 
all these offices. There was one ballot double crossed for Sheriff, one 
double crossed for Representative, and none double crossed for the 
other offices enumerated. 

"An examination of each double crossed ballot convinces your com- 
mittee that with the exception of one, there was a cross placed thereon 
for Senator by some person other than the voter who voted the ballot. 
It is somewhat significant that the judges testified that there was one 
ballot double crossed for Senator on the original count, and your com- 
mittee's examination of all crossed ballots confirms that statement." 

On the inside back page of the cover is reproduced a photograph 
of one of the changed ballots in this precinct. If there were not other 
absolute proof that the Edison ballot box was entered, this cut would 
tell the story. You will notice that all of the X's are almost uniform 
and obviously marked by the voter, excepting the extra X after the 
name of Thomas J. McElligott, which invalidated the ballot and made 
one less vote for Dr. Froshaug. On the original ballot, the voter, evi- 
dently some methodical citizen, drew his lines from corner to corner 
of the squares, while the spurious X was much smaller and in no way 
harmonized with the others. 

* * * 

The minority report of the Committee on Elections, signed by C. F. 
Cook, ended with this conclusion: 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 89 

"There is no direct evidence at all, and no satisfactory evidence of 
any nature that any of these ballot boxes, or of the ballots therein, had 
been tampered with between the date of the election and the date of the 
recount by the inspectors, and the differences in the result of the recount 
of the inspectors and the return made by the judges of election must be 
attributed to mistakes of the judges and clerks of election." 

Senator Cook in this connection, recommended the adoption of the 
following: 

"Resolved, That Ray G. Farrington was duly elected Senator of the 
56th Senatorial District at the General Election held November 8th, 1910, 
and that he is entitled to and be given the seat of Senator of that District 
in this Senate." 



In order to get another view of the fight for Farrington, it is neces- 
sary to give brief consideration to one other contest for a seat in the 
Senate. John Saugstad and A. D. Stephens were candidates for the Re- 
publican nomination for State Senator in Polk county. Mr. Stephens 
won. Then Mr. Saugstad's friends instituted a "sticker" campaign, and 
by the use of stickers he defeated Mr. Stephens in the November elec- 
tion. Next Mr. Stephens prosecuted a contest, which was considered by 
the Committee on Elections. On February 2nd this body reported unani- 
mously in favor of Saugstad, finding that his plurality over Stephens 
was 202. The will of the voters was expressed more unmistakably 
than those figures indicated, a great many Saugstad votes being thrown 
out because they were improperly marked. 

Mr. Stephens was a reactionary of the most pronounced and un- 
alterable type. Mr. Saugstad was a progressive in politics. But that was 
not the issue in the contest between them, which the Senate had to de- 
cide. The citizens of Polk county preferred Saugstad and gave him a 
majority of several hundred votes. He was elected and had every right, 
moral and legal, to retain his seat. I studied this Stephens-Saugstad con- 
test from all possible angles. Every point of view led to the one inevit- 
able conclusion: Its institutors must have been mistaken in their esti- 
mate of the probity of the Senate. There was nothing else upon which 
to hope for success in the attempt to thwart the plainly expressed will 
of the people and seat a Senator who had not been elected. Mr. Stephens 
had not the slightest legal or moral right to a place in the Senate, yet 
the reactionaries almost succeeded in creating a combination with votes 
enough to accomplish the dual disgrace of seating both him and Farring- 
ton. 

The real test in the Saugstad-Stephens contest came on February 
7th, the day fixed for final action on the case. The Froshaug-Farring- 
ton special order had been postponed to give the Committee on Elections 
more time to investigate. The brewery influences back of the combina- 
tion wanted the Farrington matter settled first and if they had succeeded 
in that effort Farrington would have received enough support from 
Stephens' friends to have been seated, and the combination would prob- 
ably have held together for the other contest. Everybody understood 
the issue when on February 7th, Senator Duxbury moved that final ac- 
tion in the Stephens contest be postponed until February 15th. Study 
the roll call on that motion and note the changes when the vote was 
taken on the question of seating Farrington. Senators Duxbury and 
Marden voted to postpone the Stephens contest. If that had been done 
in all probability they would have voted for Farrington, had his case 
been settled first. Even one of those two votes would have seated him. 
The roll call on the Duxbury motion resulted as follows, those voting 



90 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

"aye" being either knowingly or unknowingly in favor of the objects of 
the combination for Farrington and Stephens: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Anderson, Carpenter, Coller, C. P. Cook, L. O. 
Cooke, Denegre, Donaldson, Dunn, Duxbury, Glotzbach, Gunn, Handlan, C. D. Johnson, John- 
ston, L'Herault, McGrath, Harden, Moonan, Pauly, Poehler, Pugh, Schaller, Stebbins, G. H. 
Sullivan, J. D. Sullivan, Van Hoven, Weis, Works — 28. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: Ahmann, Bedford, Boyle, Cashman, Cheadle, 
Clague, Dale, Duea, Dwinuell, Elwell, Fosseen, Froshaug, Gunderson, Hackney, Hanson, Hay- 
craft, V. L. Johnson, Klein, Lende, Murray, Nelson, Odell, Olson, Peterson, Putnam, Rockne, 
Rustad, Sageng, Sundberg, Swanson, Thoe, Wallace, and Wilson — 33. 

After failing in this, only six Senators actually voted for Stephens 
when final action was taken later the same day. Chairman Haycraft of 
the Committee on Elections moved that the resolution seating Saugstad 
be adopted. Geo. H. Sullivan made a substitute motion that Stephens 
be seated. The vote was as follows: 

For Stephens: L. O. Cooke, Dunn, Glotzbach, C. D. Johnson, G. H. Sullivan, Works — 6. 

For Saugstad: Ahmann, Anderson, Bedford, Boyle, Carpenter, Cashman, Cheadle, Clague,. 
Coller, C. F. Cook, Dale, Denegre, Donaldson, Duea, Duxbury, Dwinnell, Elwell, Fosseen, 
Froshaug, Gunderson, Gunn, Hackney, Handlan, Hanson, Haycraft, V. L. Johnson, Johnston, 
Klein, Lende, L'Herault, McGrath, Marden, Moonan, Murray, Nelson, Odell, Olson, Pauly, 
Peterson, Poehler, Pugh, Putnam, Rockne, Rustad, Sageng, Schaller, Stebbins, J. D. Sullivan, 
Sundberg, Swanson, Thoe, Vau Hoven, Wallace, Weis, Wilson — 55. 

A difference of three votes on the Duxbury motion might have kept 
the combination intact against Froshaug. but its failure removed the 
Stephens element from the Farrington contest and undoubtedly pre- 
vented the disgrace which only the heroic work of Senators like Hay- 
craft, Sageng, Gunderson, Putnam and Boyle, averted as it was. 

* * * 

There were four distinct stages in the fight for Farrington. First, 
the early indications were that the figures of the recount would stand. 
Next, the Elections Committee probed deeper into the case and discov- 
ered additional and conclusive evidence that ballot boxes had been en- 
tered and votes changed, which turned the tide in Froshaug's favor. 
This condition continued almost up to the day before the contest was 
decided and it was the general opinion that Farrington would not receive 
more than twenty votes. 

Then came the final effort for Farrington. They cracked the party 
whip over the Democrats. Farrington's personal popularity was em- 
ployed to bring some of his old senatorial associates into line. Votes 
for the Congdon reapportionment bill were traded for votes against 
Froshaug. Most potent, however, was the brewery organization, which 
brought into the new combination a number of the "old guard." Still 
a few were lacking on the day before final action and these were sup- 
plied, only the Lord knows how, in a last all-night hunt for votes. As 
a result, Farrington's friends, jaded but happy, entered the contest, 
claiming 34 who either did not understand the situation or else believed 
not in the will of the majority. 

The last stage was the closing hour of the debate in which "the 
four" swung back to Froshaug and gave him the victory. That debate 
was dramatic and of epochical importance to the state. Senators Put- 
nam, Gunderson, Sageng, Haycraft, and Boyle bore the brunt of the 
battle for the integrity of the ballot and the latter two closed the de- 
bate with a challenge to every friend of Farrington to inspect the 
changed ballots, which were in the building, before voting to unseat the 
man who was being cheated out of his position by an election fraud as 
heinous as it was obvious. That debate lasted five hours. It was so 
intense, so conclusive, that even Duxbury, one of the Senators who spoke 
for Farrington voted against him. 

When Senator Haycraft moved that S. J. Froshaug retain his seat, 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 91 

Senator Works, leader of the Farrington forces, made a substitute mo- 
tion that Ray G. Farrington be seated. The roll call resulted as follows, 
Senator Hackney being absent, and Froshaug not voting: 

For Farrington: Ahmann, Anderson, Carpenter, Cheadle, Coller, C. F. Cook, L. 0. Cooke, 
Denegre, Donaldson, Dunn, Glotzbach, Gunn, Handlan, C. D. Johnson, Johnston, L'Herault, 
McGrath, Moonan, Murray, Olson, Pauly, Poehler, Pugh, Schaller, Stebbins, G. H. Sullivan, 
J. D. Sullivan, Van Hoven, Weis, Works— 30. 

For Froshaug: Bedford, Benson, Boyle, Cashman, Clague, Dale, Duea, Duxbury, Dwinnell, 
Elwell, Fosseen, Gunderson, Hanson, Haycraft, V. L. Johnson, Klein, Lende, Marden, Nelson, 
Odell, Peterson, Putnam, Rockne, Rustad, Sageng, Saugstad, Sundberg, Swanson, Thoe, 
Wallace, Wilson— 31. 

Perhaps the people of Minnesota needed just such a disgrace as 
was averted by .one vote, to arouse them to a realization that the brew- 
ery combine does not consider suffrage a sacred thing. 



CHAPTER XV. 

LABOR AND THE LEGISLATURE. 

The proletariat is beginning to understand the significance of gov- 
ernment. Political conditions always outweigh industrial conditions in 
the battle for bread. Laws more than labor determine how much of this 
world's wealth each shall possess and enjoy — which applies equally to 
overlord and layman. It is because men and women now realize that 
government means more, not in sentiment, but in dollars and cents, 
than any one's business, that they are rising everywhere to drive special 
interests and professional politicians out of power. The tidal wave of 
reform sentiment that is sweeping the country, is not due to a moral 
impulse on the part of the people — its origin and impetus exist in that 
uncompromising law of self-interest and self-preservation which ulti- 
mately actuates every race, and nine-tenths of America is in the ranks 
of toil. 

Commercial conditions, the sequel of political conditions, are fast 
converting industrial democracy into a state where the rank and file 
are dependent upon more than their labor. There is neither competi- 
tion nor co-operation to lessen the high cost of living for those who toil. 
Competition has been superseded by monopoly, and co-operation by pa- 
ternalism in business. Both competition and co-operation, the only 
safeguards for the many, depend upon politics, controlled by the few. 
Legislation is becoming a matter of millions for the special interests 
and of bread and butter for all who contribute their mite. 

What did the Minnesota Legislature of 1911 do in respect to labor? 
I shall only recite enough to suggest the general situation. 

DIRECT LEGISLATION. 

Labor was supremely interested in the enactment of an initiative 
and referendum amendment. The story of that struggle and of its phases 
of special importance to organized labor, has already been told. _ The 
Joint Labor Legislation Board published a report after the session, signed 
by Robert E. Jones, Dennis J. Hayes, and Tom J. McGrath, in which 
this issue was discussed as follows: 

"Several bills on this subject were introduced by different House 
members. The Joint Board endorsed the bill known as H. F. 681, which 
provided that legislation might be initiated upon the petition of 10 per 
cent of the legal voters of the state, and that the referendum might be 
invoked by 7 per cent of the voters. The only pronounced opposition 
to this bill emanated from the brewery interests. 

"However, we have every reason to believe that the bill would have 
passed had not the President of the Minnesota State Federation and its 
legislative agent, without the knowledge or authority of the Board and 
in violation of its by-laws, attempted both verbally and through the 
press to release members of the Legislature from the pledges made to 
the Board to vote for the bill. The following named members of the 
House pledged themselves without qualification to vote for the Initiative 
and Referendum bill which might be endorsed by the board, and then 
afterwards repudiated their pledges by voting against the bill; K. S. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 93 

Aker, Neillsville; C. W. Bouck, Royalton; R. J. Clarke, St. Paul; Moyle 
Edwards, Breckenridge; E. J. Fuchs, St. Paul; John A. Healey, Hibbing; 
Frank Hopkins, Fairfax; J. J. Hurley, St. Paul; J. P. Jelinek, St. Paul; 
Jos. Peters, Farmington; Frank Minette, Sauk Center, and C. P. Schuler, 
Winona. 

"After a discussion of the proposition, which consumed two days 
of this session, the so-called Pfaender Bill, H. H. 718, passed the House 
by a vote of 63 to 50. The percentages in this bill were so high as to 
make the bill impracticable and inoperative and therefore we publicly 
denounced the bill, which failed of passage in the Senate." 

* * * 

WORKINGMAN'S COMPENSATION ACT. 

This session, like its predecessor, succeeded in averting any final 
action on an employers' liability bill. Several measures were introduced, 
which accomplished the usual condition of chaos and discord. This leg- 
islation was of more importance to the laboring element than any other, 
excepting the initiative and referendum. Yet it was defeated almost 
without effort. 

* * * 

THE L.UNDEEN BILL. 

In this connection, after the hardest kind of a struggle, Ernest Lun- 
deen did succeed in securing the passage of a bill increasing the amount 
for damages which could be collected for "wrongful death" from $5,000 
to $7,500. This was H. F. No. 34, introduced January 17th. It met with 
many parliamentary obstructions, imposed in its path by Alex Nelson 
and others, but finally passed the House February 24th by the follow- 
ing vote: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Aker, And. Anderson, A. V. Anderson, J. J. 
Anderson, Boothroyd, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Burnquist, Campbell, 
Christie, Clarke, Conley, Converse, Crane, Davies, Diessner, R. C. Dunn, Edwards, Farley, 
Ferguson, Fowler, Frankson, Fuchs, Greene, Harding, Hauge, Herzberg, Hillman, Holmberg, 
Hopkins, Hurley, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, Just, Keefe, Knapp, Kneeland, Kunze, I. J. 
Lee, J. F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lennon, Libera, Lundeen, Lydiard, McDonald, MacKenzie, McMartin, 
McNeil, Mattson, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Morton, Nash, H. Nelson, Nolan, O'Brien, Orr, 
Palmer, Perry, Peters, A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Reed, Ribenack, Rice, Riues. Robertson, 
Robinson, Rustad, Saggau, Schuler, Skartum, Spooner, W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Utecht, C. H. 
Warner, E. Warner, Westcott, White, Whiting, Wisniewski, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 87. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: Denzer, Henion, Hoffman, Hoi ten, J. T. Johnson, 
Klemer, Knutson, Lindberg, A. Nelson, Nye, Nygren, O'Neill, O. Peterson, Putnam, Schwartz, 
C. E. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Virtue— 20. 

The measure had even more difficulty in the Senate. After surviving 
an onslaught in the Judiciary Committee, it passed the upper branch on 
the last day by a vote of 33 to 30, as follows: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Ahmann, Bedford, Boyle, Cashman, Cheadle, 
C. F. Cook, Duxbury, Fosseen, Gunderson, Hackney, Handlan, Haycraft, Johnston, Leiide, 
L'Herault, McGrath, Marden, Moonan, Murray, Nelson, Odell, Olson, Pauly, Peterson, Pugh, 
Putnam, Rustad, Sageng, Saugstad, Schaller, Sundberg, Van Hoven, Works — 33. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: Anderson, Benson, Carpenter, Clague, Coller* 
L. O. Cooke, Dale, Denegre, Donaldson, Duea, Dunn, Dwinnell, Elwell, Froshaug, Glotzbach, 
Gunn, Hanson, C. D. Johnson, V. L. Johnson, Klein, Pwhler, Rockne, Stebbins, G. H. Sulli- 
van, J. D. Sullivan, Swanson, Thoe, Wallace, Weis, Wilson — 30. 

* * * 

THE KNUTSON BILL,. 

The report of the Joint Labor Legislation Board discussed an at- 
tempt at "constructive" work as follows: 

"Another bill of vital interest to the laboring men was H. F. 455, 
introduced on February 14th, by Knute Knutson, of Swift Falls. It 
was referred to the Committee on General Legislation and reported 
back March 3rd. The bill in substance purported to compel the submis- 
sion of industrial disputes to a board of arbitration, before a strike could 



94 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

be declared. The bill was so drafted that a strike could not be called 
within a period of seventy-five days from the time the controversy arose, 
without subjecting the participants to a severe penalty, while the em- 
ployer might discharge his men any time during that period. The bill 
in its other features was so inequitable and unfair that we deemed it 
to the best interests. of the laboring men to use our influence in killing 
it, which we accordingly did." 

This Knutson bill was placed upon its final passage in the House 
March 29th, and defeated: 

For the Knutson Bill and Against Labor: And. Anderson, A. V. Anderson, Congdon, Con- 
verse, R. C. Dunn, Ferguson, Harding, Hauge, Hoffman, Holten, Hopkins, Knutson, Lennon, 
MaeKenzie, McMartin, McNeil, Mattson, Morton, H. Nelson, Nygren, O'Neill, A. J. Peterson, 
J. E. Peterson, 0. Peterson, Rines, Robertson, Sampson, Schwartz, Skartum, Spooner, C. H. 
Warner, Washburn, White, Wisniewski — 34. 

Against H. F. No. 455: Aker, J. J. Anderson, Boothroyd, Borgen, Bouck, G. W. Brown, 
L. D. Brown, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Clarke, Conley, Crane, Davies, Denzer, Diessner, 
Edwards, Farley, Fowler, Frankson, Fuchs, Greene, Hafften, Healy, Herzberg, Hillman, 
Holmberg 1 , Hurley, Jelinek, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just, Keefe, Kelley, 
Klemer, Knapp, Kneeland, Kunze, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, S. N. Lee, Lindberg, Lundeen, Lydiard, 
McDonald, Mettling, Minette, Moriarity, Nash, A. Nelson, Nolan, Nye, O'Brien, Orr, Palmer, 
Papke, Perry, Peters, Pfaender, Putnam, Reed, Ribenack, Robinson, Rustad, Saggau, Schuler, 
W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Utecht, Virtue, Voxland, E. Warner, Wes- 
cott, Whiting, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 79. 

* * * 

CHILD LABOR LAW. 

H. F. No. 558, by W. A. Campbell, of the Committee on Labor, was 
an excellent measure designed to protect both the morals and health 
of the young. It was drafted with especial reference to the white slave 
traffic in young girls. But it went down to defeat because it would 
have interfered a little with the employing class. "Team work" and the 
"brewery bunch" accomplished the killing. The bill passed the House 
and was held in the Senate until a few minutes before twelve on the 
last night. The upper branch had amended the measure by striking out 
one word, necessitating its repassage by the House — which was the 
"team work." The "brewery bunch" was guarding the clock and forced 
final adjournment before it could be acted upon. 

THE FIREMEN'S BILL. 

H. F. No. 66, by Mr. Fuchs, authorized street railway companies to 
grant free transportation to firemen and policemen. It passed the 
House January 26th, by a vote of 77 to 32, many of the progressives op- 
posing on the ground that it conflicted with the principle of the anti- 
pass law. The vote was as follows: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Aker, And. Anderson, Boothroyd, Borgen* 
Bouck, G. W. Brown, L. D. Brown, Burnquist, Campbell, Christie, Clarke, Congdon, Converse, 
Denzer, Diessner, Farley, Ferguson, Fowler, Fuchs, Greene, Hauge, Healy, Henion, Herzberg, 
Hillman, Hoffman, Hurley, Jelinek, Just, Keefe, Kelley, Knapp, Kneeland, Kunze, S. N. Lee, 
Lennon, Libera, Lundeen, Lydiard, McDonald, MaeKenzie, McMartin, McNeil, Mettling, 
Minette, Moriarity, Morton, H. Nelson, Nolan, O'Brien, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer, Papke, Perry, 
Peters, 0. Peterson, Pfaender, Reed, Ribenack, Rice, Robinson, Saggau, Schuler, Schwartz, 
C. E. Stone, W. T. Stone, Sullivan, Thielen, Untiedt, Virtue, E. Warner, Washburn, Westcott, 
White, Whiting, and Speaker H. H. Dunn — 77. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: J. J. Anderson, Conley, Crane, Davies, Davis, 
Edwards, Frankson, Hafften, Harding, Holmberg, Holten, Hopkins, C. E. Johnson, J. N. 
Johnson, Klemer, Knutson, I. J. Lee, J. F. Lee, Lindberg, Mattson, A. Nelson, Nygren, A. J. 
Peterson, J. E. Peterson, Putnam, Rines, Robertson, Rustad, Sampson, Skartum, Spooner, 
Sulerud, Voxland, Webb, and Wisniewski — 32. 

The fireman's bill passed the Senate March 9th by the following vote: 

Those Who Voted in the Affirmative Were: Cheadle, Clague, Coller, C. F. Cook, Denegre, 
Duea, Dunn, Duxbury, Dwinnell, El well, Fosseen, Froshaug, Hackney, Handlan, Haycraft, 
V. L. Johnson, L'Herault, MeGrath, Moonan, Nelson, Pauly, Poehler, Pugh, Rockne, Rustad, 
Saugstad, Schaller, J. D. Sullivan, Swanson, Van Hoven, Wallace, Weis, Wilson — 33. 

Those Who Voted in the Negative Were: Ahrnann, Anderson, Bedford, Benson, Boyle, 
Carpenter, Cashman, L. 0. Cooke, Dale, Donaldson, Glotzbach, Gunn, Hanson, C. D. Johnson, 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 95 

Johnston, Klein, Lende, Harden, Murray, Odell, Olson, Peterson, Sageng, Stebbins, G. H. 
Sullivan, Sundberg, Thoe, Works — 28. 

Governor Eberhart vetoed the measure and an attempt to pass it 
over his veto failed. When H. F. No. 66 was placed upon its repassage 
Representative W. A. Campbell suggested that it had been vetoed in the 
interest of the Twin City Rapid Transit Co., through the influence of 
E. E. Smith, but subsequently apologized voluntarily for "unparliamen- 
tary" language. 

The Committee on Labor in the House was headed by W. A. Camp- 
bell and contained a majority of other progressives. This committee 
was virtually selected by the labor organizations and performed excel- 
lent service throughout the session. But some of the most important 
measures affecting labor were sent elsewhere. The employer's liability 
bills were placed in the hands of the Judiciary, and the Knutson bill 
against labor went to the Committee on General Legislation. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

WOMAN SUFFRAGE. 

Sometimes the only way to measure the importance of a political 
issue is to consider the character and purpose of those opposed to it. 
Viewed in that light female suffrage at once takes rank with the most 
crucial questions that concern our citizenship. The three things most 
feared by the special interests and professional politicians were: (1) the 
initiative and referendum; (2) woman suffrage; and (3) an amendment 
such as was attempted in the Sulerud bill, giving the people a chance to 
change their own constitution. 

There are only two fundamental phases of the question of political 
equality. The first embodies the idea of the right of every intelligent, 
law-abiding individual unit of society to a voice in government. The 
second is the idea of more collective authority, more ultimate power in 
government for all who vote. The first means woman suffrage and the 
second, direct legislation through the initiative, referendum and recall. 
These two reforms are kindred in every sense, just this difference ex- 
isting between them; one relates to the unit of society; the other to 
society as a whole. 

The brewery opposition to woman suffrage was subtly masked. The 
fundamental nature and consequence of the issue was kept completely in 
the background. The fight was made on the ground that it was only a 
woman's question and that the women themselves were not seeking the 
ballot — a pitifully inadequate excuse which must have induced no end of 
bacchanalian laughter in Carling circles. It is a man's question. Equal 
suffrage should not be considered as a means of giving to women some- 
thing which they want and to which they are entitled, but as an agency 
of good government. That is precisely why the brewery combine classes 
woman suffrage with direct legislation as a menace to their political 
supremacy in the state. 

Senator Sageng introduced S. F. No. 59, proposing a constitutional 
amendment giving the ballot to women. The bill did not grant woman 
suffrage; it only gave to the people an opportunity to vote upon the 
question and decide for themselves whether or not that amendment 
should be incorporated into the constitution. Those who voted against 
the measure did more than signify their opposition to the idea of equal 
suffrage; they assumed an intelligence and power higher than sovereignty 
itself by denying to the people the right to settle the question. Is it 
any wonder that direct legislation is demanded, and is coming? 

The question did not come to a vote in the House. In the Senate 
the bill was defeated by the following vote: 

To Give the People am Opportunity To Decide the Question of Woman 
Suffrage: Bedford, Benson, Boyle, Cashman, Cheadle, C. F. Cook, Dale, Dene- 
gre, Duxbury, Elwell, Froshaug, Gunderson, Hanson, Hayeraft, C. D. Johnson, 
V. L. Johnson, Lende, Moonan, Nelson, Odell, Olson, Peterson, Putnam, Rus- 
tad, Sageng, Saugstad, Schaller, Sundberg, Thoe, Wilson — 30. 

To Kill Woman Suffrage, Denying the Right of the People to Vote Upon 
the Question: Ahmann, Anderson, Carpenter, Clague, Coller, L. O. Cooke, 
Donaldson, Duea, Dunn, Dwinnell, Fosseen, Glotzbach, Gunn, Hackney, Hand- 
Ian, Johnston, Klein, L'Herault, McGrath, Marden, Murray, Pauly, Poehler, 
Pugh, Rockne, G. H. Sullivan, J. D. Sullivan, Swanson, VanHo^en, Wallace, 
Weis, Works — 32. 

Thus again was the judgment of the reapportionment schemers justi- 
fied. Verily, a "safe" Senate would be sufficient for their purposes. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

"HOLD-UP" LEGISLATION. 

Legislators are no ordinary burglars, or "hold-up" artists. They 
do not go forth upon the highways and, at the point of a pistol, take 
away a man's valuables. With them, it is not the usual salutation — 
"your money or your life!" Instead they say — "pay our price, or we 
will legislate against your business." 

For example, when H. F. No. 71, prohibiting theatrical entertain- 
ments on the Sabbath, came into the House, it was the signal for show- 
men to hold up their hands, while the legislative highwaymen went 
through their pockets and extracted passes to the theatres. If the man- 
agers had resisted, the robbers would not have shot them; but they 
would have tried to pass the bill. Rather than face decreased revenue 
from being forced to keep their playhouses dark on Sundays, the theatre 
men gave up the tickets, in return for which the measure was "indefinitely 
postponed." This was done by the Committee on General Legislation 
on February 28th. Chas. W. Bouck was the author of this bill. He 
may not have known how it would tap the ticket tank. It is possible 
that he may have been imposed upon and "used" by "alumni coaches" 
or others who were familiar with the orthodox method of obtaining 
passes. 

A "hold-up" bill is not always a sign that its author is a highway- 
man. Many measures presented for purposes of graft are not intro- 
duced by grafters. New members often give parentage to such bills, 
and neither profit nor understand why they are killed. "Hold-up" bills 
always have merit — otherwise none would be interested in their defeat 
— and the merit is all that the inexperienced lawmaker sees. So the 
fact that a certain member introduced a certain measure of the char- 
acter indicated in this chapter is not an accusation that his act and 
inclinations were criminal. 

In previous sessions fuel and lumber dealers have had opportunities 
to hold up their hands, leaving their pockets unprotected. This condi- 
tion has been brought to pass through legislative investigations. Some 
members would introduce a resolution providing for the appointment of 
a committee to investigate the fuel or lumber "combine," alleging that it 
was in restraint of trade and consequently illegal. Then, if those to be 
investigated, made satisfactory "arrangements" with the investigators, 
the inquiry became a whitewash. On January 12th, Moyle Edwards pre- 
sented a resolution asking for an investigation of the fuel companies in 
Minnesota. Chas. R. Fowler blocked it temporarily by giving "notice 
of debate," and Mr. Edwards never attempted to force it to a vote. 

"The fur bill" is a good illustration. It was H. F. No. 518, introduced 
by W. H. Wescott on February 17th. This measure sought to regulate 
the manufacture and sale of fur garments in such a way that it would 
have interfered with the profits of those in that business. I do not 
know that Mr. Wescott and those on the outside who drafted this 
measure, or any of them, had any hold-up intentions in the premises; 
nor do I know that the furriers acted their part in killing the bill; but 
the Committee on General Legislation "indefinitely postponed" it on 
March 23rd. If this measure had been presented for the purpose of 
"holding-up" fur men, and if they had paid money to have it killed, the 
transaction would have been typical of this kind of legislation. 

"Hold-up" bills are of two classes: (1) those introduced for the 
purpose of being killed, the interests attacked often being willing to pay 



9S THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

for their defeat; and (2) the constructive kind — the enactment of some 
law so favoring certain concerns that they would pay for its passage. 

The method in the first class is about as follows: a coterie of pro- 
fessional politicians get control of two or three committees, usually the 
committees on Public Health and Pure Food, and Commerce and Retail 
Trade. Then some one of this crowd, or often some inexperienced and 
wholly innocent progressive, will introduce a bill aimed at some in- 
dustry or individual. It will be referred to one of these committees 
which the plunderers control, where it will be killed — when those at- 
tacked have agreed to the terms of the robbers. And it would surprise 
you to know how little it takes at times to influence "statesmen" of this 
class. I know of $25 men, and a few even lower in the scale of criminal 
indigence. 

Here are a few from a long list of bills of a character to indicate 
that they might have been such as to illustrate the suggestions of this 
chapter: 

H. F. No. 523, prohibiting the sale of snuff, introduced February 17th, 
by Mr. O'Brien. Referred to the committee on Public Health and Pure 
Food. 

H. F. No. 660, to prevent the sale of snuff, introduced February 
28th, by Mr. Denzer, and referred to the committee on Public Health 
and Pure Food. 

H. F. No. 668, prohibiting repeating shot guns, introduced March 
1st, by Mr. Denzer, and referred to the Committee on Game and Fish. 

H. F. No. 870, to prevent fraud in the sale of precious stones, intro- 
duced March 11th, by Mr. Denzer, and referred to the committee on 
Commerce and Retail Trade. 

The Hauge Stock Food Bill — H. F. No. 476 — was a measure about 
which there was much speculation. It would have greatly restricted the 
mammoth business of the International Stock Food Company. It passed 
the House but died in the Senate, largely because of the impression that 
certain Representatives had been in a "receptive" mood in the lower 
body. 

The other kind of "hold-up" legislation might be suggested in these 
two specific cases: Chester A. Congdon introduced H. F. No. 381. re- 
pealing the anti-cigaret law, which was reported for passage unanimous- 
ly by the Committee on Public and Pure Food. I use this bill, and 
the one which follows, only as illustrations of the general character and 
aspect of such measures. Mr. Congdon is a man high above "plunder." 
I do not believe that the* tobacco companies gave any impetus to the 
bill. At the previous session, when the anti-cigaret law was enacted, if 
a little money had been used judiciously the bill might have been de- 
feated. Perhaps the plunderers thought the Tobacco Trust had ex- 
perienced a change of heart in the intervening two years and would be 
ready to do business. 

The Hopkins bill — H. F. No. 190— requiring all cities and villages 
in the state to use voting machines was the kind of a measure which 
might have been used for "hold-up" purposes. Voting machines are 
practically controlled by a monopoly H. F. No. 190, if enacted, would 
have proved a "gold mine" for those in control, and, had they been un- 
scrupulously inclined, they could have afforded to pay well for its pass- 
age. Probably neither Mr. Hopkins nor the voting machine monopoly 
ever thought of corruption in connection with the measure, which was 
defeated by a vote of 17 to 59, but jt serves to illustrate the class of 
bills which confer special or monopolistic privileges. 

This might be one of the longest chapters in the book. It is short 
because I desire to do no more than suggest the principle and practice 
of "hold-up" legislation. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

A CHARACTERIZATION OF MEMBERS. 

Before proceeding to a classification of members, you should see 
something of the various avenues leading to the conclusions of this chap- 
ter. My task in this respect has been extremely difficult, made so by the 
masks which men wore. Because it was so complex, I have peered into 
many unusual legislative by-ways. Some of these were inspected in 
confidence, and I cannot indicate the foot prints therein revealed; in a 
few exceptional cases they showed that crafty statesmen had "backed 
in." 

Just before final adjournment I sent a letter to each member of 
both House and Senate asking for a list of the bills in which he was 
especially interested and such suggestions as he cared to offer concerning 
the work of the session. Here is a sample of the statements contained 
in the responses: "I twice voted for the Recall. I voted for the State- 
Wide Primary. I voted for the Distance Tariff. I voted for the income 
tax amendment and stood with the temperance people on every temper- 
ance measure this winter." And yet neither the recall, the primary ex- 
tension nor any of the other reforms mentioned or suggested was 
enacted into law. In preceding installments and in what follows, I have 
attempted to fix the responsibility for the shortcomings of the session 
without fear or favor. The main tests in the House were: 

Fundamental Matters. — There were a number of vital issues relating 
to the legislature and to the more important question of enlarging the 
political opportunities of the people. These involved: 

1. The Speakership — The organization of the House overshadowed 
in consequence every other phase of the session. The part republican 
members played in that contest is considered, their subsequent attitude 
toward the reactionary administration being taken into account. The 
democrats were not forced to disclose their real inclinations in refer- 
ence to the speakership, but had many later opportunities to demonstrate 
where they stood. Almost in this same connection their votes in the 
selection of a successor to Senator Clapp is significant. 

2. The Nolan Amendment. — The attempt on the part of the Pro- 
gressives to compel publicity in the work of the standing committee first 
demonstrated which members wanted to reform the rules in this respect 
and which preferred the old Cannonistic conditions. 

3. The Two-Thirds Resolution. — The reactionaries attempted, thru 
this resolution, to destroy the right of the majority to advance a bill, 
thus giving one-third the power to delay and defeat reform measures. 

4. The Klemer Controversy. — The Klemer-Stone clash with the 
organization involved the fundamental issue of truth on one hand, and 
the rule or ruin principle of the reactionaries on the other. 

5. Direct Legislation. — The first vote to advance the progressive 
initiative and referendum bill was the best test on this question, fol- 
lowed closely in consequence by the roll call on the progressive meas- 
ure itself. The best test on the recall is the vote by which the Senate 
bill was taken from House Committee on Elections and made a special 
©rder where it could be voted upon in the open. 



100 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

6. The Sulerud Bill. — The special interest enemies of popular gov- 
ernment are safeguarded by the present provision which makes amend- 
ments to the constitution practically impossible. Therefore, the vote 
on the Sulerud bill which aimed to give the people a legitimate chance 
to change their own constitution is one of the most vital tests. In the 
same connection the Kneeland bill for a constitutional convention is 
important. 

7. Election Measures. — "Team work" made unnecessary any crucial 
vote on the state-wide primary in the House and the general scheme 
of delay enabled the reactionaries to escape without a final vote on the 
Stone corrupt practices act and other election bills. 

Moral Questions. — County option involved both fundamental and 
temperance principles. It was vitally democratic, because it gave to 
the people of each county the right to decide whether or not there should 
be saloons in that county. There were two test votes on county option: 
(1) When the administration attempted to diminish debate by hurrying 
the special order; and (2) the final vote on the bill. Other important 
temperance or moral tests were: 

1. Local Option for 4th Class Cities. — The roll call which best 
separated the friends and the enemies of this idea was on the motion 
to concur in the Senate amendments to the "Speaker Dunn bill." 

2. The Road House Bill. — The vote on the Rice amendment divided 
the sheep from the goats on this measure. 

3. The Robinson Brewery Bill. — This measure regulating breweries 
in their relation to blind pigs, etc., came to a direct vote. 

The Tonnage Tax. — The most significant roll call on the Frankson- 
Johnson bill was the one overturning the report killing it in committee. 

The Distance Tariff. — The eleventh hour action of the House meant 
little because it came so late in the session that there was small chance 
for its reconsideration in the Senate. 

Reapportionment. — The Congdon scheme of reapportionment was 
not completely unmasked until it reached the Senate. The Seven-Senator 
Bill came later, and largely as a result of a reaction against the Congdon 
measure. 

Neither the vote for the Keefe bill nor the income tax amendment 
was very vital as a test in the House, because it appears that their defeat 
was expected in the Senate. 

PARTY RECORDS. 

Before taking up individuals, it may be well to briefly consider parti- 
san influences and actions. Four political parties were^ represented in 
the membership of the House. They were Socialist, Prohibitionist, Dem- 
ocratic and Republican. 

1. Socialist. — N. S. Hillman was the only member. He stood with 
the progressives on every issue, and if that party can be judged by 
his legislative acts and inclinations, it stands for fundamental democracy. 

2. Prohibitionist. — There were four of this political faith in the 
House. All of them were active, conscientious progressives. They stood 
with the insurgent representatives of the other parties on all vital ques- 
tions—temperance and otherwise. 

3. Democratic. — So far as party influence was concerned the demo- 
crats were decidedly reactionary. They numbered 26 and had the bal- 
ance of power throughout the session. Two of them, Clinton Robinson 
and F. L. Farley, were unvarying insurgents. Martin Schwartz was 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 101 

nearly as progressively inclined, but felt restrained at times by the 
sentiment of his district. W. A. Just, L. Wisniewski, and Nygren were 
semi-progressive. On fundamental questions, Farley, Robinson, and Just 
voted for the Nolan amendment and only the first two for the progres- 
sive initiative and referendum bill on the real test. Schwartz joined with 
these two in supporting the Sulerud bill. The two were again alone on 
the two-thirds resolution, but were reinforced by Nygren and Wisniewski 
in their vote against the censuring of Klemer. Not a single democrat 
voted for county option, and at least 21 of the 26 stood with the liquor 
element on every vital question. The democrats, under the leadership 
of Albert Pfaender, were responsible for the defeat of an effective direct 
legislation bill. They had the same power and opportunity to extend 
the scope and scheme of democracy in other directions, but maintained 
their alliance with the reactionary republican organization on all vital 
questions, excepting the Keefe bill. 

4. Republican. — There were eighty-nine republicans, the majority 
of whom were reactionary. The stand pat element, reinforced by the 
democrats, controlled the session. The progressive republicans aided 
by the four prohibitionists, one socialist and from three to five democrats 
kept up the unequal fight for fundamental reforms from start to finish. 
With small variations, the forces stood: Progressives, 45; Reaction- 
aries, 75. 

TRI-COUNTY DELEGATION. 

More than one fourth of the entire House membership came from 
the three large counties, St. Louis, Ramsey and Hennepin. Of these 32, 
24 were reactionary and eight progressive. On vital questions the Tri- 
County delegation stood as follows: 

The Speakership: For Dunn, 20; for Burnquist, 4. 

Nolan Amendment: Ayes, 9; Noes, 19. 

Initiative and Referendum: Ayes, 9; Noes, 20. 

The # Sulerud Bill: Ayes, 4; Noes, 21. 

Revision of Constitution: Ayes, 5; Noes, 21. 

Two-Thirds Resolution: Ayes, 14; Noes, 8. 

To Censure Klemer: Ayes, 23; Noes, 5. 

County Option: Ayes, 9; Noes, 22. 

Rice Amendment: Ayes, 21; Noes, 8. 

To Concur, 4th Class City Bill: Ayes, 7; Noes, 20. 

Tonnage Tax: Ayes, 1; Noes, 30. 

Distance Tariff: Ayes, 0; Noes, 31. 

The Congdon Bill: Ayes, 27; Noes, 3. 

The individuals in the tri-county delegation are considered first, the 
members from St. Louis, Ramsey, and Hennepin counties being taken 
up in that order. 

Anton Borgen, 50th Dist., Duluth. — A reactionary of exceedingly 
small capacity; always followed his bell wethers into the special interest 
camp; supported Speaker Dunn and remained loyal to his administra- 
tion throughout the session; on real fundamental tests, he voted against 
the Nolan publicity amendment, all initiative and referendum bills, the 
Sulerud bill, the attempt to amend the Constitution and was for the 
two-thirds resolution; on election issues, he opposed the recall, exten- 
sion of the primary and the Stone corrupt practices act; opposed county 
option and stood with the brewery element on every vital question. Mr. 
Borgen displayed little individual initiative or character as a law-maker 
and unhesitatingly followed the lead of bigger men. 

Chester A. Congdon, 51st Dist., Duluth. — One of the brainiest and 
biggest men in the House. He controlled enough members so that it 



102 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

was in his power to elevate the legislature high above the plane of po- 
litical plunder upon which it acted; instead he permitted the re-establish- 
ment of the old alliance between the brewers and other special interests 
of the state; was one of a few responsible for Speaker Dunn's election, 
and was with his reactionary organization from start to finish; was a 
member of the Committee on Rnles; opposed the Nolan amendment to 
the rules and was against the insurgents on all fundamental tests. Voted 
to censure Klemer without a trial; voted three times against the recall 
and was opposed to election reforms; voted against county option 
and was with the brewery element on every important question affecting 
the liquor interests; was one of the signers of the protest which aided 
the efforts of the "brewery bunch" in defeating reforms by forcing final 
adjournment; was chairman of the reapportionment committee and was 
chiefly responsible for the scheme of reapportionment discussed in a prev- 
ious chapter. 

John A. Healy, 49th Dist., Hibbing. — One of the St. Louis county 
delegation who followed the lead of Congdon and always voted with 
the reactionary combination; supported Dunn for Speaker and stood con- 
sistently agaiast the progressives on every vital economic and moral issue. 
Mr. Healy had small influence. 

N. S. Hillman, 51st Dist., Lake County. — The only Socialist member 
in the House; aligned himself with the insurgents; took a prominent 
part in the fight for the initiative and referendum and all other pro- 
gressive measures. Stood consistently against the special interests; had 
no part in the speakership fight, but cast his vote for Thomas Van Lear 
for United States Senator; voted for the Nolan publicity amendment; 
introduced one of the best initiative and referendum bills, but side- 
tracked his own measure in the interest of harmony among the progress- 
ives who were fighting for that reform; was for the Sulerud bill; wanted 
to revise the Constitution and opposed the two-thirds resolution; for 
Klemer; was progressive in all election questions; voted for county op- 
tion, and with the insurgent element on every question affecting the 
regulation of the liquor traffic. Mr. Hillman was one of the most intelli- 
gent and uncompromising of the progressives. 

C. T. Knapp, 49th Dist., Chisholm. — One of the youngest members; 
was clean and inclined to be progressive, although almost invariably 
found in the reactionary camp. Supported Dunn for Speaker; opposed 
the Nolan amendment; was against the progressives in all phases of the 
fight for direct legislation; opposed the Sulerud bill and the revision of 
the state constitution; was for the two-thirds resolution; stood with the 
organization against Klemer; was against county option; voted against 
the distance tariff. On real tests of strength between the special inter- 
ests and the people Mr. Knapp stood with the former, but frequently 
voted to repudiate the Cannonistic action of committees. 

E. R. Ribenack, 50th Dist., Duluth. — One of the twenty-six House 
Democrats. Was somewhat independent of bell wether influences and 
performed excellent services for the people of his home city. Voted 
for Clapp to succeed himself as United States Senator; was opposed 
to county option and all of the progressive attempts to restrict or reg- 
ulate the liquor traffic, which associations carried him into the reaction- 
ary camp on many fundamental questions; he voted for the progressive 
initiative and referendum bill; stood with the organization against Klem- 
er; opposed the Stone corrupt practices act and voted against the recall 
on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment on the last day. Mr. 
Ribenack was largely responsible for the passasre through the House of 
the bill giving Duluth power over the Duluth-Edison Company. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 103 

ST. PAITL MEMBERS. 

J. A. A. Burnquist, 33rd Dist. — Strong insurgent leader; was the 
progressive candidate for Speaker, which contest is discussed in the chap- 
ter on Speakership; was an uncompromising progressive and never 
failed to vote to give larger political opportunities to the people; sup- 
ported the Nolan publicity amendment and took a prominent part in 
the fight for every fundamental fight for reform; opposed the two-thirds 
resolution and the censure of Klemer; stood with the progressives on 
every issue affecting the liquor traffic; opposed the tonnage tax and 
distance tariff. Mr. Burnquist displayed unusual ability and courage in 
his legislative work and made some of the best speeches of the session. 

R. J. Clarke, 34th Dist. — Reactionary democrat who never wavered 
in his support of the special interest program. Voted for Dick O'Connor 
as a successor to Moses E. Clapp; opposed the progressives on every 
real test of strength; favored censuring Klemer without a hearing; 
opposed all election reforms; was with the brewery element throughout 
the session; one of the small minority who voted to whitewash the Sec- 
retary of State. 

E. J. Fuchs, 33rd Dist. — One of the lesser reactionaries who never 
wavered in his support of the special interest program; voted against all 
initiative and referendum bills; was against Klemer. Mr. Fuchs was 
author of the firemen's bill. 

T. J. Greene, 34th Dist. — A reactionary who voted consistently with 
the Dunn organization, excepting on the final passage of the progressive 
initiative and referendum bill; was unprogressive on moral issues; op- 
posed county option; voted for the Rice amendment to the Dunn road 
house bill; opposed the Robinson brewery bill; voted to whitewash 
Schmahl. Mr. Greene made the motion that resulted in the final adjourn- 
ment of the House with so much important work undone. 

J. J. Hurley, 35th Dist. — One of the reactionary Democrats who 
made no trouble for the system. Was unprogressive on every vital ques- 
tion; voted three times against the recall and opposed the Stone corrupt 
practices act; voted for the extension of the primary which had no 
chance of passage; stood with the brewery element throughout the ses- 
sion. Mr. Hurley exerted no influence except in a petty political way. 

John P. Jelinek, 35th District. — Supported Dunn and stood with the 
reactionary organization throughout the session; opposed both direct 
legislation bills, the Nolan amendment, county option and Klemer. 

H. W. McDonald, 34th Dist. — Another machine democrat. Voted for 
Dick O'Connor to succeed Moses E. Clapp; opposed all initiative and 
referendum bills and was reactionary on other fundamental tests; voted 
with the brewery element from start to finish; voted to whitewash 
Schmahl. Mr. McDonald evidently regarded law making from the poli- 
tician's point of view. 

John D. O'Brien, 36th Dist. — One of the democratic bell wethers. 
Tried to lead his party associates to support Dick O'Connor for United 
States Senator; opposed the progressives and stood with the reactionary 
republican organization throughout the session; was the author of the 
twelve o'clock lid law and never missed an opportunity to exert his 
influence in behalf of the liquor element; voted against the recall on the 
real test; voted to whitewash Schmahl. 

Charles N. Orr, 37th Dist. — One of the two insurgents from Ramsey 
county. Possessed good equipment, which was generally employed in the 
interest of the progressive program; supported Burnquist for Speaker, 
and stood with the progressives on the initiative and referendum, but 
opposed the Sulerud bill and the revision of the constitution; voted 



104 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

against the two-thirds resolution; was with the organization on some 
of the votes against Klemer; for all election reforms; stood with the pro- 
gressive element in favor of county option and against the brewery- 
element on all other questions affecting the liquor interests; opposed the 
tonnage tax. Mr. Orr performed excellent service for his city, being 
largely responsible for the bill increasing the river port opportunities of 
St. Paul. He introduced three play-ground bills, a measure practically 
abolishing capital punishment and other bills of vital interest to St. 
Paul. 

E. G. Perry, 37th Dist. — A reliable reactionary whose influence, when 
not negative, was exerted in the interest of the brewery and professional 
politician elements. Supported Dunn for Speaker and remained loyal 
to his organization throughout the session; opposed both initiative and 
referendum bills and was against the people on all other fundamental 
issues; opposed election reforms; voted against county option and the 
whole progressive program in so far as it related to the liquor traffic. 
Mr. Perry headed the Committee on Legislative Expenses, the inactivity 
of which is suggested in the chapter about the Plunderbund. 

C. E. Stone, 36th Dist. — One of the leading lieutenants of Speaker 
Dunn; was reactionary on every important question before the legis- 
lature; voted against both direct legislation bills; voted to censure 
Klemer; voted three times against the recall, and was one of sixteen to 
vote against the primary election bill; always voted with the brewery 
element; a member of the crucial Committee on Rules; was one of the 
signers of the "protest" at the close. Mr. Stone was a quiet, scheming 
kind of member with considerable ability and influence. 

MINNEAPOLIS MEMBERS. 

William A. Campbell, 42nd Dist. — Insurgent leader; supported Dunn 
for Speaker, but stood consistently with the progressives throughout 
the session; supported the Nolan amendment and himself initiated sev- 
eral reforms in the rules; was one of the authors of the progressive 
initiative and referendum bill and took a leading part in the fight for 
that measure; voted for the Sulerud bill and to amend the Constitution; 
opposed the organization on its two-thirds resolution and the clash with 
Klemer; supported all election reforms; stood with the progressives on 
county option and every other temperance question excepting the state- 
wide prohibition bill; opposed the Radisson bill. Mr. Campbell started 
an investigation of the state insurance department and, in spite of the 
fact that he was given a "packed" committee, succeeded in disclosing a 
great deal. Mr. Campbell distinguished himself by fighting the supplies 
and third house graft at every opportunity. 

W. A. Fisher, 40th Dist. — His illness and death during the session 
stopped a promising legislative career. Mr. Fisher was able to attend 
only the first few days of the session, but during that time impressed 
his progressiveness and patriotism upon all his colleagues. He intro- 
duced a number of reform measures of the deepest fundamental impor- 
tance and voted consistently with the insurgents. 

Charles R. Fowler, 40th Dist. — A leading lieutenant of Speaker 
Dunn; considered one of the ablest and most dangerous reactionaries 
in the House; was a member of the crucial Committee on Rules; led 
the fight against the progressive initiative and referendum; opposed the 
Nolan amendment to the rules and voted against the progressives on 
every other question of fundamental importance; was against the Stone 
corrupt practices act; opposed county option and stood with the brew- 
ery combine on all other issues affecting the regulation or restriction of 
the liquor traffic. Mr. Fowler was himself a brewery attorney and his 
exceptional ability in fighting issues like direct legislation made him 
very valuable to those interests in the legislature. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 105 

Thomas Kneeland, 41st Dist. — Reactionary; was largely responsible 
for Speaker Dunn's election; voted against reforming the rules; opposed 
the progressive initiative and referendum bill, the Sulerud bill and voted 
to censure Klemer; voted for county option and against the Rice amend- 
ment to the road house bill but was against state-wide prohibition and 
the Robinson brewery bill; did not vote on the real test extending local 
option to cities of the fourth class. Mr. Kneeland was the author of 
several progressive measures, like the recall and the civil service bill, 
which shared the fate of other reforms. He was given one of the most 
important chairmanships — that of the Judiciary Committee — and usually 
stood with the organization. 

W. F. Kunze, 39th Dist. — Began as a progressive, but ended reaction- 
ary. Aside from his vote for rules reform and the progressive initiative 
and referendum bill, which was cast under protest, he stood for much 
of the reactionary program; supported Speaker Dunn and took a lead- 
ing pro-administration part in the Klemer controversy; voted against 
the Sulerud bill, against a revision of the Constitution and against the 
Stone corrupt practices act; voted for county option and stood with the 
progressive element on most liquor questions; voted against the Radi- 
sson bill. Mr. Kunze represented the University district and seemed to 
feel that it was necessary to stand in with the reactionary powers in 
order to get appropriations for that institution. 

John G. Lennon, 41st Dist. — One of the leading lieutenants of Speak- 
er Dunn; chosen speaker pro-tem. during Dunn's illness; a politician of 
extraordinary energy, which was employed against progressive meas- 
ures; was closely allied with reactionary democrats; has a record con- 
sistently bad, except for one occasion when he sacrificed the system to 
promote a bill in which he was selfishly interested. On fundamental 
questions he was invariably unprogressive; always voted with the brew- 
ery element on liquor questions; supported the Rice amendment and 
voted against extending local option on the real test; had charge of the 
Radisson bill in the House. 

Ernest Lundeen, 42nd Dist.— Insurgent leader; a fearless and able 
young man; made a speech seconding the nomination of Burnquist for 
Speaker, in which he asserted that reactionary influences were back of 
the other candidate; insurged beyond any other member by casting the 
only vote against the Cannonized rules; has an excellent record on pro- 
gressive measures; voted for the Nolan amendment, the progressive 
initiative and referendum bill, the Sulerud bill, for revision of the state 
constitution; was against the two-thirds resolution and against the ad- 
ministration in the Klemer controversy; stood for all election reforms; 
opposed the county option bill, but introduced a measure on the same 
subject; voted with the insurgent element on all other liquor questions, 
except the Robinson brewery bill; voted against the Radisson bill. Mr. 
Lundeen introduced a measure providing for the election by the people 
of delegates to presidential conventions. He was active in behalf of leg- 
islation in the interest of the laboring class and secured the passage of 
a bill increasing damages for wrongful death to $7,500. 

L. A. Lydiard, 43rd Dist. — Stood by the reactionaries in the legisla- 
ture and gave evidence of acting in harmony with bosses higher up; was 
active in the fight against Whittier, which seemingly began as a political 
scheme to oust certain members of the Board of Control; voted against 
the Nolan amendment; opposed all initiative and referendum bills and 
Was reactionary on other fundamental questions; voted to censure Kle- 
mer; voted against the recall on the real test; opposed county option 
and stood with the brewery combine on the most vital questions; voted 
against the Radisson bill. 



106 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

Alex McNeil, 44th Dist. — Supported Dunn for Speaker; opposed the 
progressive initiative and referendum bill and the revision of the state 
constitution, but voted for the Sulerud bill; was against Klemer; voted 
for the recall and state wide primary; stood with the brewery interests 
against county option, public treating; was for the Rice amendment; 
voted against the Robinson brewery bill and extending local option to 
cities of the fourth class; voted for the Radisson bill. 

John P. Nash, 41st Dist. — A reactionary politician who voted against 
the people, excepting when he was absent, which was a great deal of 
the time; voted against Klemer; opposed county option and stood with 
the liquor element on all vital issues; voted for the Radisson bill. Mr. 
Na?h was author of the weights and measures bill which adds to the 
political opportunities of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission. 

W. I. Nolan, 43rd Dist. — Was exceptionally well equipped for public 
service and made an enviable record as the floor leader of the progressive 
group; supported Bnrnquist for Speaker; was author of the Nolan 
amendment to the rules and took a prominent part in every fight for 
fundamental reforms; voted for the progressive initiative and referen- 
dum bill and against the Pfaender measure on the same subject; sup- 
ported the Sulerud bill and revision of the state constitution; was re- 
sponsible for the defeat of the two-thirds resolution; supported county 
option and stood with the insurgents on every liquor question; voted 
against the Radisson bill. Mr. Nolan was aggressive, fearless and force- 
ful in all his work. He was especially active in supporting Minneapolis 
measures in the interest of the people. 

George M. Nye, 44th Dist. — Of small caliber but perniciously active 
as a reactionary; supported Dunn and voted with the organization on 
every issue; opposed all fundamental reforms; voted against the recall 
on the real test; stood with the brewery combine whenever a vote was 
needed; voted for the Radisson bill. 

Frank L. Palmer, 39th Dist. — Progressive; one of the six supporters 
of Dunn who insurged against the efforts of the organization to defeat 
reform measures; voted for the Nolan amendment and the progressive 
initiative and referendum bill, but was against the Sulerud bill and a 
revision of the Constitution; voted for Klemer; was for all election re- 
forms; was chairman of the Committee on Temperance and opposed 
the brewery combine both in committee and on the floor of the House 
on every issue; voted against the Radisson bill. Mr. Palmer is a citizen 
of excellent judgment and good intentions; has a fine record of service 
for the people. 

M. J. Sullivan, 38th Dist., Minneapolis. — A Dick O'Connor democrat 
with a record consistently bad. He voted against the progressive initia- 
tive and referendum bill and was reactionary on every other fundamental 
question; voted against the recall on the real test; voted for the Radisson 
bill. Mr. Sullivan was a signer of the "protest." 

P. C. Thielen, 38th Dist., Minneapolis. — A new democratic member 
who was "delivered" with the majority of his party associates; was a 
colleague of Sullivan, followed him on roll call and invariably voted the 
same, being subject to the same influences and inclinations; voted for 
Dick O'Connor to succeed Clapp in the United States Senate; voted 
against all initiative and referendum bills; voted for the Radisson bill. 
The last midnight found Mr. Thielen in front of the clock. 

W. D. Washburn, Jr., 41st Dist. — Has a mixed record, partly pro- 
gressive and partly reactionary; supported Speaker Dunn and for the 
most part voted with the organization; did not vote on the Nolan amend- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 107 

ment, but opposed the progressive initiative and referendum bill; voted 
gainst the Sulerud bill and a revision of the Constitution; did not vote 
on the two-thirds revolution; was with the organization in its fight 
igainst Klemer; voted against the Stone corrupt practices act, but sup- 
ported the recall and state-wide primary; voted for county option and 
the Robinson brewery bill and to extend local option to cities of the 
fourth class, but supported the Rice amendment which destroyed the 
oad house bill; voted for the Radisson bill. 



Knute S. Aker, 62nd Dist., Polk County. — Reactionary; occupied a 
strategic position at the head of the roster and always started roll calls 
in the interest of the politicians; supported Speaker Dunn and remained 

oyal to the organization throughout the session, voting against the Nolan 
amendment, county option, initiative and referendum. Klemer, and the 
tonnage tax. Mr. Aker was a small, but dependable, servant of the 

ystem. 

Andrew Anderson, 31st Dist., Washington County. — Almost always 
: ound on the side of the special interests; closely associated with Senator 
Geo. H. Sullivan, one of the most prominent and pernicious survivors 
of the old guard machine; voted against the Nolan amendment, the pro- 
gressive initiative and referendum bill; the Sulerud bill, and was for the 
wo-thirds resolution; opposed Klemer; was against the recall on the 
ast test; stood with the liquor element; voted for the tonage tax and 
the distance tariff. 

A. V. Anderson, 29th, Goodhue County. — One of the four prohibi- 
tionist members; stood consistently with the progressive group on all 
imdamental as well as moral issues; opposed the reactionary organiza- 
tion in its fight against Klemer and on all other questions affecting the 
special interests; voted for the tonnage tax and the distance tariff. Mr. 
Anderson developed into one of the most efficient members. 

J. J. Anderson, 58th, Douglas County. — One of the most steadfast in- 
surgents; an intelligent, conscientious member, always on the side of the 
people, on both moral and economic issues. Mr. Anderson was an un- 
compromising progressive; voted for the Nolan amendment, progressive 
nitiative and referendum bill, the Sulerud bill, and aided Klemer; voted 
for the tonnage tax and the distance tariff. In his death the state lost 
a valuable legislator. 

Frank Boothroyd, 29th, Goodhue County. — Supported Speaker Dunn; 
opposed the Nolan amendment, the Sulerud bill, and voted to censure 
Klemer, but favored the progressive initiative and referendum bill; was 
progressive on election measures; voted against county option, but fa- 
vored extending local option to cities of the fourth class; voted for the 
tonnage tax, but opposed the distance tariff. Mr. Boothroyd was pro- 
gressive at times, but usually stood with the organization. 

Chas. W. Bouck, 48th, Morrison County. — A mere politician who as- 
sociated with the special interest members; supported Dunn for Speaker 
and stood with the reactionary organization; voted against both direct 
legislation bills; was against Klemer; voted against the recall on the 
best test; opposed county option and the bill extending local option on 
the last test; was for the Rice amendment; voted to whitewash Schmahl; 
favored the distance tariff. Mr. Bouck introduced the biennial bill clos- 
ing theatres on Sunday. 

G. W. Brown, 24th, McLeod County. — Had progressive inclinations, 
but supported Speaker Dunn and became one of the most unvarying re- 
actionaries; opposed the Nolan amendment; voted against both initiative 



108 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

and referendum bills; voted to censure Klemer; opposed the recall on 
the best test; was against county option and the local option bill on the 
last test; voted for the Rice amendment; voted against the tonnage tax, 
but was for the distance tariff. 

L. D. Brown, 48th, Morrison County. — One of the Speaker's leading 
lieutenants; was chairman of the Committee on Elections and did more 
than almost any other member to block progressive legislation; opposed 
both direct legislation bills and was reactionary on all other vital issues; 
voted twice against the recall and opposed the Stone corrupt practices 
act; invariably voted with the liquor interests; was against the tonnage 
tax, but supported the distance tariff. 

F. C. J. Christie, 6th, Mower County. — Was reactionary at the begin- 
ning and the close, with a progressive period sandwiched in between; 
supported Speaker Dunn and opposed the Nolan amendment; in some 
way became identified with the insurgents group and stood with them in 
the fight for direct legislation, the Sulerud bill; and to sustain Klemer; 
was progressive on election measures; opposed county option; did not 
vote on the Rice amendment; opposed extending local option to fourth 
class cities on the last test; was against the tonnage tax and for the 
distance tariff. Mr. Christie opposed the Congdon reapportionment bill. 

Kerry E. Conley, 4th, Olmstead County. — Strong insurgent leader; 
supported Burnquist for Speaker and never on any occasion failed to 
vote against the special interests. Mr. Conley did more than vote with 
the progressives on all moral and economic questions; he was always 
working and planning in behalf of the people. Although an old, expe- 
rienced and well equipped member, he was given exceedingly small rec- 
ognition by the reactionary organization. Mr. Conley was especially 
active in the fight against graft and introduced the resolution which made 
possible the publishing of the details concerning supplies in the chapter 
on the Plunderbund. 

Phillip S: Converse, 60th, Becker County. — A new member who was 
buffeted about between progressive inclinations and the snares of the 
system; supported Speaker Dunn and was most often found with the 
organization; opposed the Nolan amendment, but supported the pro- 
gressive initiative and referendum measure and the Sulerud bill; opposed 
county option, did not vote on the Rice amendment, nor the Robinson 
brewery bill; supported the measure extending local option to fourth 
class cities; voted for the tonnage tax and the distance tariff. 

Ralph E. Crane, 6th, Mower County. — A progressive with an excellent 
record; supported Speaker Dunn, but later was against the organization; 
stood with the insurgents on all economic and moral issues; voted for 
county option and consistently opposed the liquor element; voted for 
the tonnage tax; was the author of the distance tariff bill in the House 
and secured its passage through that body; opposed the Congdon reap- 
portionment bill. 

Joseph Davies, 13th, Watonwan County. — Insurgent leader; a quiet 
but forceful, influential member, who always opposed the special inter- 
ests; was for the Nolan amendment and was active in the fight for direct 
legislation and to sustain Klemer; worked hard for election reforms; op- 
posed the brewery combine as often as he had opportunity; voted for the 
tonnage tax and the distance tariff; took a leading part in opposing the 
Congdon scheme of reapportionment. 

Andrew Davis, 45th, Sherburne County. — Insurgent leader; one of the 
strong men of the progressive camp; supported Burnquist and remained 
an insurgent throughout the session; was a county optionist and espe- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 109 

nally active against the brewery influence. Mr. Davis performed excel- 
ent service in the preparation of the various appropriation bills. 

G. H. Denzer, 27th, Le Sueur County. — A quiet, but experienced re- 
ictionary, who stood with the organization and voted for the special in- 
terests; opposed both direct legislation bills and voted to censure Klemer; 
was against the recall on the best test; voted against county option and 
extending local option on the last test; favored the Rice amendment; was 
gainst the tonnage tax, but voted for the distance tariff. 

H. R. Diessner, 25th, Carver County. — New member and reactionary; 
: or Speaker Dunn; against both direct legislation bills; against Klemer; 
voted twice against recall; opposed state-wide primary; pro-brewery; for 
the tonnage tax and distance tariff. 

H. H. Dunn, 9th, Freeborn County. — Was the reactionary and suc- 
cessful candidate for Speaker; organized the House so as to give every 
advantage to the -special interests and professional politicians; his influ- 
ence and votes were against the progressives throughout the session; 
voted against both direct legislation bills; opposed Stone corrupt prac- 
tices act; was against the recall on the best test; stood with the brewery 
element, even voting against the motion to concur in the Senate amend- 
ments to the bill extending local option to fourth class cities, which de- 
feated the measure. 

R. C. Dunn, 45th,- Mille Lacs County. — Reactionary leader; one of the 
Speaker's lieutenants; was for county option and fathered the Road 
House bill, but usually stood for the special interest program; supported 
Speaker Dunn and remained loyal to his organization; was especially 
vehement and active against Klemer; against both direct legislation bills; 
opposed state-wide primary, Stone corrupt practices act and voted three 
times against the recall; opposed the distance tariff and was a leader 
in the fight against the tonnage tax. Mr. Dunn proved himself a poli- 
tician of the old, old school. He was author of the "good roads" bills. 

Moyle Edwards, 60th, Wilkin County. — Has a mixed record; voted 
with the progressives on many issues involving economy; supported 
Speaker Dunn; for Nolan amendment; opposed both direct legislation 
bills; voted against censuring Klemer; against the recall on best test; 
oposed state-wide primary; stood with the brewery element; was against 
the tonnage tax and distance tariff. 

F. L. Farley, 1st, Houston County. — One of the two unvarying demo- 
cratic insurgents; except for his vote against county option he stood with 
the progressives throughout the session; got out of a sick bed to vote for 
the progressive initiative and referendum bill; introduced a bill providing 
for a road and bridge fund, but his measure was side-tracked for the 
R. C. Dunn bill. Mr. Farley was absolutely immune to the usual demo- 
cratic "inducements" and kept his own counsel and company. The peo- 
ple had no more consistent friend. 

T. M. Ferguson, 52nd, Carlton County. — Posed as a progressive; sup- 
ported Speaker Dunn and usually voted with the organization; opposed 
Klemer and kept up that course to the end by being the first signer of 
the "protest;" against Nolan amendment and the Sulerud bill, but voted 
for the progressive initiative and referendum bill; was for county option, 
but supported the Rice amendment to the road house bill; against the 
tonnage tax and distance tariff. Mr. Ferguson was uninfluential. 

Thomas Frankson, 5th, Fillmore County. — Insurgent leader; always 
a sharp thorn in the flesh of the reactionary organization; supported 
Speaker Dunn, but took his stand with the progressives at the start and 
remained in that camp; for Nolan amendment, progressive direct legis- 
lation bill, Sulerud bill and Klemer; against county option, but voted with 
the insurgents on all other temperance questions; led in the fight for a 



110 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

tonnage tax and was for the distance tariff. Mr. Frankson attacked the 
Congdon reapportionment bill with characteristic energy. 

August Hafften, 46th, Wright County. — One of the lesser reaction- 
aries; supported Speaker Dunn and his organization on all vital tests; 
against both direct legislation bills; opposed county option and stood for 
the Hquor program; voted for the tonnage tax and the distance tariff; 
was willing to whitewash Schmall. 

W. A. Harding, 12th, Faribault County. — One of the strongest and 
most influential insurgents; supported Burnquist and never wavered an 
inch in his progressive course; made the most telling speeches against 
the organization in the Klemer incident and on the Congdon bill; was 
a county optionist and progressive on all other moral and economic is- 
sues; voted for the tonnage tax and the distance tariff. Mr. Harding 
demonstrated exceptional force and influence. 

O. Hauge, 31st, Washington County. — Supported Speaker Dunn; was 
for the Nolan amendment, but voted with the organization against Klemer- 
and opposed the progressive direct legislation bill; against county option 
and the Robinson brewery bill, but opposed the Rice amendment; voted 
for the tonnage tax and distance tariff. Mr. Hauge was the author of 
the pure seed and stock food bills. 

Alva Henion, 9th, Freeborn County. — Reactionary colleague of Speak- 
er Dunn; uninfiuential, but consistently against the progressive program; 
voted against both progressive direct legislation bills; voted to censure 
Klemer; opposed the recall on the best test; opposed county option and 
stood for the brewery combine, even voting for the Rice amendment and 
against the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to the bill ex- 
tending local option to fourth class cities; voted for the tonnage tax and 
the distance tariff. 

C. F. Herzberg, 11th, Blue Earth County. — One of the democrats 
who voted with the reactionary organization; against the progressive di- 
rect legislation bill, the Sulerud bill and Klemer; opposed the Stone cor- 
rupt practices act; stood for the brewery program; did not vote on the 
tonnage tax; was against the distance tariff. 

Henry A. Hoffman, 4th, Olmstead County. — Had a mixed record, but 
was usually reactionary; supported Speaker Dunn and voted with his 
organization in the Klemer case and on most fundamental issues, except- 
ing the Nolan amendment; voted against the recall once and against the 
state-wide primary; opposed county option and stood with the brewery 
element, even voting for the Rice amendment and against extending local 
option rights on the best test; was the only member of the tax committee 
to recommend the passage of the tonnage tax, and voted for the distance 
tariff. Mr. Hoffman voted against the Congdon reapportionment bill. 

N. J. Holmberg, 22nd, Renville County. — Strong insurgent leader; 
supported Burnquist and was found with the progressives on every test 
of strength; had charge of the state-wide primary and succeeded in forc- 
ing that measure through the House; was prominent and influential in 
all the councils of the progressive element and displayed excellent con- 
structive ability. Mr. Holmberg was responsible for the passage of H. F. 
No. 210, consolidating rural schools, one of the best educational measures 
of the session. 

John Holten, 62nd, Polk County. — Did not vote in the Speakership 
contest, but took his stand with the progressives and remained in their 
camp throughout the session; was for^ the Nolan amendment, Sulerud 
bill, the progressive direct legislation bill and Klemer; was consistently 
against the brewery influence; voted for the tonnage tax and against the 
distance tariff. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 111 

Frank Hopkins, 22nd, Renville County. — Was called the "conundrum 
of the session;" has a mixed record; suported Speaker Dunn, opposed the 
Nolan amendment and the progressive initiative and referendum bill; 
voted to censure Klemer; opposed county option; was one of the authors 
of the anti-treating bill and usually voted against the brewery combine 
on liquor questions; voted against the tonnage tax; was for the distance 
tariff. Mr. Hopkins opposed the Congdon reapportionment bill. 

C. E. Johnson, 55th, Kandiyohi County. — Insurgent leader; the first 
of "the three Johnsons," who were all always in the front ranks of the 
progressive group; supported Burnquist for Speaker and voted consist- 
ently in the interests of the people from the beginning to the end of the 
session; introduced a number of meritorious measures, among them being 
a bill to regulate the carrying of live stock on railroads; was especially 
interested in the county option bill, the initiative and referendum and the 
recall of all public officers. Mr. Johnson was one of the most intelligent 
and determined of the insurgents. 

J. N. Johnson, 17th, Yellow Medicine County. — Strong insurgent lead- 
er; one of the two most hated men in the House, a distinction earned by 
his unceasing, uncompromising, fight against graft, extravagance and the 
brewery program; supported Burnquist and without a single exception 
stood with the progressives throughout the session; was one of the au- 
thors of the progressive initiative and referendum bill; voted against the 
spurious Pfaender bill; presented a number of anti-saloon measures; 
among them a bill extending local option to cities of the fourth class, 
which was defeated by the administration. In equipment, inclinations 
and influence, Mr. Johnson had no peer in the House. 

J. T. Johnson, 59th, Otter Tail County. — Insurgent leader; never 
lagged behind the other Johnsons in his progressiveness; supported Burn- 
quist and was an unvarying insurgent; voted against the special interests 
on all moral and economic questions; stood by Klemer; opposed the 
brewery combine on county option and other tests of strength; voted for 
the tonnage tax and the distance tariff. Mr. Johnson was one of the 
watch dogs of the treasury and took a leading part in the fight against 
extravagance in the purchasing of supplies. 

W. A. Just, 11th, Blue Earth County. — Democrat; voted for Nolan 
amendment; against progressive direct legislation bill and Klemer; with 
the liquor element; against tonnage tax and distance tariff. Mr. Just was 
inclined better than he acted. 

Joseph R. Keefe, 19th, Redwood County. — A democrat who voted for 
the program; opposed Nolan amendment, progressive direct legislation 
bill, Sulerud bill and Klemer; did not vote on Stone corrupt practices act; 
anti-county option and stood with the brewery combine, voting for the 
Rice amendment and against extending local option on the last test; 
against the Robinson brewery bill and for public treating; voted against 
the tonnage tax and the distance tariff. Mr. Keefe was author of the 
Oregon plan of electing United States senators. 

Frank L. Kelly, 11th, Blue Earth County. — Almost a democratic bell 
wether; was conspicuously active and exerted some influence in a polit- 
ical way; always pro-brewery and reactionary; against the tonnage tax 
and for the distance tariff. 

F. L. Klemer, 28th, Rice County. — Consistent insurgent; always voted 
for progressive measures and against the special interests. Created the 
sensation of the session by charging that special interests controlled the 
organization, which threw the house into a condition of chaos from which 
it did not recover before adjournment. Mr. Klemer is discussed in the 
chapter on Klemeritis and Stone Bruises. He was the people's friend. 



112 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

Knute Knntson, 56th, Swift County.— Supported Burnquist, but was 
largely reactionary in his influence, which was small; voted against Nolan 
amendment, progressive direct legislation bill and the Sulerud bill; for 
Klemer; county optionist; was for the tonnage tax and distance tariff. 

I. J. Lee, 58th, Pope County. — Insurgent leader; supported Burnquist 
and was an unvarying progressive on all moral and economic issues; not 
necessary to give details, as he was always against the special interests. 
Mr. Lee is experienced and well equipped for such public service. 

J. F. Lee, 46th, Wright County. — Insurgent leader; supported Burn- 
quist; a sincere advocate of county option and as uncompromisingly pro- 
gressive on all other questions. Mr. Lee was a new member who showed 
line character and influence; was always on the side of the people. 

S. N. Lee, 60th, Clay County. — A private in the reactionary ranks; 
pro-brewery; invariably voted against the other Lees. 

Albert P. Libera, 2nd, Winona. — New member of small capacity, who 
voted for Dunn and stood consistently with the reactionary organization. 

R. J. Lindberg, 59th, Ottertail County. — Insurgent leader; supported 
Burnquist; was with the progressives on all vital questions. Mr. Lind- 
berg proved a capable legislator and has a record not surpassed by any 
member. 

George A. MacKenzie, 21st, Sibley County. — Chairman of Rules Com- 
mittee and organization floor leader; w r as especally active in opposition 
to temperance legislation; has a record as a reactionary of the deepest 
dye. 

Finlay McMartin, 7th, Dodge County. — Supported Burnquist and was 
a consistent insurgent, voting always on the side of greater morality, 
economy and efficiency in public matters. 

G. H. Mattson, 63rd, Roseau County. — Was a little inclined towards 
reactionaryism at the beginning of the session, but usually voted on the 
reform side and performed excellent service for the progressives at the 
finish; a strong, influential member. 

P. J. Mettling, 18th, Chippewa County. — Democrat who was coaxed 
and caucussed into the reactionary camp. 

Frank E. Minette, 54th, Stearns County. — Reactionary democrat on 

fundamental questions; inclined to vote right on questions of smaller 
moment. 

J. J. Moriarity, 26th, Scott County. — One of the democrats. 

Rufus P. Morton, 45th, Mille Lacs County. — One of the four prohibi- 
tionists; was always with the progressive group on economic and tem- 
perance questions. Mr. Morton has fine ability and easily ranked among 
the best equipped and most patriotic members of the House. 

Alex. Nelson, 59th, Ottertail County. — Supported Dunn; voted against 

the Nolan amendment, but was for the direct legislation bill, the Sulerud 
bill, and Klemer; voted for county option under protest; was for the 
tonnage tax and the distance tariff. Mr. Nelson stood with the organiza- 
tion a part of the time. 

Herman Nelson, 15th, Murray County. — One of the smaller reaction- 
aries who could do little more than vote against the people; pro-brewery, 
and opposed both the tonnaee tax and the distance tariff. 

Carl S. Nygren, 3rd, Wabasha County. — Democrat; supported the 
progressive initiative and referendum bill, but was usually reactionary. 

D. P. O'Neill, 61st, Pennington County. — Supported Burnquist and 
stood with the insurgents on vital questions until the Klemer case; op- 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 113 

posed the brewery influence throughout the session; was against the 
tonnage tax and the distance tariff. 

John W. Papke, 10th, Waseca County.— A new member who became 
submerged in the reactionary system. 

Joseph Peters, 30th, Dakota County.— Voted for Dick O'Connor to 
succeed Clapp; the rest of his record in harmony with that act. 

A. J. Peterson, 18th, Lac Qui Parle County. — Insurgent leader; sup- 
ported Burnquist and was one of the active, consistent progressives; mid- 
night found him in front of the clock, but he was there for a different 
purpose than the "brewery bunch." Mr. Peterson represents the most 
intelligent and courageous type of legislator. 

J. E. Peterson, 57th, Grant County. — Insurgent leader; voted for 
Burnquist; was one of minority members of the Temperance Commiltee 
and did excellent work there. Mr. Peterson was one of the best of the 
new members. 

Ole Peterson, 20th, Nicollet County. — Record consistently unpro- 
gressive; gave one the impression that he would have preferred a dif- 
ferent course. 

Albert Pfaender, 19th, Brown County. — The democratic bell-wether; 
one of the administration lieutenants; was chiefly responsible for the de- 
feat in the House of the progressive direct legislation bill. 

H. A. Putnam, 59th, Ottertail County. — Insurgent leader; supported 
Burnquist, and never once failed to vote in the interest of the people; 
no member has a better record. Mr. Putnam has a clear conception of 
the right in all public questions and is one of the most dependable and 
valuable members ever sent to St. Paul. 

George D. Reed, 28th, Rice County. — Reactionary; invariably neu- 
tralized the vote of his colleague, Mr. Klemer, on vital questions. 

L. H. Rice, 53rd, Hubbard County. — Reliable reactionary; supported 
Dunn and always voted with the organization; demonstrated a close 
connection with the brewery element by offering the "Rice amendment," 
which emasculated the Road House Bill. 

Henry Rines, 32nd, Kanabec County. — Insurgent leader; supported 
Burnquist and was consistently progressive; introduced the county option 
bill and ably conducted the fight for that reform; played a conspicuous 
part in advancing the state-wide primary. Mr. Rines had large influ- 
ence and good ability. 

Donald Robertson, 63rd, Marshall County. — Supported Burnquist and 
was usually progressive; opposed the Nolan amendment; was with the 
organization against Klemer part of the time. 

Clinton Robinson, 2nd, Winona County. — Insurgent leader; one of 
the two unvarying democratic progressives; shared with J. N. Johnson 
the distinction of being the most hated member in the Mouse; took a 
prominent part in the fight for every fundamental reform: continually 
kept the reactionaries and special interest members in hot water by 
his resolutions and plain talk; put the income tax amendment through 
the House; forced his brewery bill to a final vote; cast the only vote 
against the "supplies resolution." Mr. Robinson was almost a daily 
edition of Klemer. 

John O. Rustad, 5th, Fillmore County. — Insurgent leader; was for 
Burnquist and the whole progressive program; was especially active in 
the interest of greater economy and efficiency. Mr. Rustad opposed the 
politicians and special interests from beginning to end 

H. A. Saggau, 13th, Martin County. — Democrat; one of the most 
"dependable." 



114 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

John A. Sampson, 23rd, Meeker County. — Insurgent leader; sup- 
ported Burnquist and was one of the steadfast progressives. Mr. Samp- 
son was a sincere county optionist and equally reliable on other funda- 
mental issues. 

C. P. Schuler, 2nd, Winona. — An organization democrat. 

Martin Schwartz, 27th, Le Sueur County. — Insurgent democrat, ex- 
cept when an anti-county option constituency compelled him to be re- 
actionary; was naturally independent and progressive. 

K. G. Skartum, 17th, Lincoln County. — Was elected as an independ- 
ent republican; stood with the insurgents, voting for the Nolan amend- 
ment, the Sulerud bill, direct legislation, and Klemer; supported county 
option, election reforms, the distance tariff and tonnage tax. 

Lewis C. Spooner, 57th, Stevens County. — Largely responsible for 
Dunn's election as Speaker, and had a hand in the organization of the 
House; usually voted with the reactionaries on fundamental tests like 
the Nolan amendment; voted for the progressive direct legislation bill 
under protest; took a leading part in the fight against Klemer; opposed 
the distance tariff and tonnage tax. 

W. T. Stone, 53rd, Hubbard County. — Strong insurgent leader; dis- 
played exceptional equipment for public service; introduced several meas- 
ures of the deepest fundamental importance and fought heroicly for 
direct legislation, the recall and vital election reforms; opposed the 
brewery combine with voice and vote; shared in the persecution of 
Klemer and came back with charges of corruption which were never 
met. The people had no more loyal, intelligent and courageous friend 
than Dr. Stone. 

C. L. Sulerud, 61st, Norman County. — Insurgent leader; the only 
old prohibitionist member; was author of the bill to enable the people 
to change their own constitution and was in the forefront of the pro- 
gressives on all other vital issues. Mr. Sulerud considered all questions 
from the fundamental and moral point of view. 

Henry Untiedt, 14th, Jackson County. — A "regular" democrat. 

Aug. M. Utecht, 54th, Stearns County. — A democratic "regular." 

Leonard Virtue, 8th, Steele County. — Democrat; pro-brewery and re- 
actionary on all vital issues; voted for Dick O'Connor for U. S. Senator; 
signed the "protest"; opposed progressive direct legislation bill, .recall, 
and state-wide primary. 

Geo. H. Voxland, 29th, Goodhue County. — Prohibitionist serving his 
first term; stood with the progressives on all tests of strength between 
the special interests and the people. Mr. Voxland was always busy and 
a very valuable member. 

C. H. Warner, 52nd, Aitkin County. — County optionist who sup- 
ported Dunn; opposed the Nolan amendment, progressive legislation 
bill, Sulerud bill and Klemer. 

E. Warner, 14th, Cottonwood County. — Insurgent; supported Burn- 
quist and has a consistent record of progressive votes. 

Henry P. Webb, 32nd, Pine County. — Insurgent leader; supported 
Burnquist and stood with the progressives from start to finish. Mr. 
Webb did excellent work for the people on the "packed" Temperance 
Committee. 

W. H. Westcott, 30th, Dakota County. — A politician of the plunder 
type; leading lieutenant of Speaker Dunn. 

Harrison White, 16th, Rock County. — Supported the administration; 
pro-brewery; a reactionary of the unvarying sort. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 115 

E. F. Whiting, 17th, Lyon County. — Insurgent; one of the quiet, new 
members, who stood with the progressives; had ability and determina- 
tion. 

L. Wiesniewski, 47th, Benton County.— Semi-insurgent; was pro- 
gressive except when the sentiment of his district restrained him; voted 
to advance the progressive initiative and referendum bill; opposed the 
censuring of Klemer. Mr. Wiesniewski introduced the "locker" bill and 
opposed graft and extravagance in every form. 

THE SENATE. 

Comparatively few vital questions came to a direct vote in the Sen- 
ate. There was too much courtesy and too little Klemeritis in that 
body. Senator Dunn, brewery attorney, was permitted to keep the initia- 
tive and referendum bills pigeon-holed so long that they were never 
reached. Senator Wallace did the same with the income tax amendment. 
The best tests in the Senate are the Farrington-Froshaug contest, county 
option, woman suffrage, reapportionment, the vote to delay the passage 
of the state-wide primary which defeated that reform, and the roll call 
upon the question of final adjournment with the recall, state-wide pri- 
mary and other important legislation pending. 

Tri-County^ Senators. 

James P. Boyle, 49th, St. Louis County. — Insurgent leader; largely 
responsible for seating Froshaug; for recall, state-wide primary, Keefe 
bill and woman suffrage. Mr. Boyle manifested exceptional ability and 
was among the staunchest progressives. 

H. W. Cheadle, 51st, Duluth. — Stood with the progressives except 
in the -fight for Farrington; did excellent work for his home city. 

T. M. Pugh, 50th, Duluth. — Reactionary in everything. 

* * * 

J. D. Denegre, 36th, St. Paul. — For Farrington; reactionary except 
for a vote in favor of woman suffrage. 

W. W. Dunn, 33rd, St. Paul.— Brewery attorney; for Farrington and 
reapportionment; against recall, Keefe bill, state-wide primary and wom- 
an suffrage; made the motion for final adjournment. 

Jos. M Hackney, 37th, St. Paul.— The only insurgent senator from 
Ramsey County; an able, courageous progressive; supported county 
option. 

James Handlan, 34th, St. Paul.— A Dick O'Connor democrat; for 
Farrington. 

Peter Van HoVen, 35th, St. Paul.— Very reactionary; against state- 
wide primary; for Farrington. 

* * * 

W. S. Dwinnell, 40th, Minneapolis.— Progressive; opposed Farring- 
ton; for fundamental reforms; voted against final adjournment; has fine 
ability and integrity. 

J. T. Elwell, 39th, Minneapolis.— Progressive; opposed Farrington; 
for County option and woman suffrage; proved that it is not necessary 
to be reactionary to get appropriations for the University. 

Manley L. Fosseen, 42nd, Minneapolis.— Semi-progressive; against 
Farrington; for countv option; did good work for Keefe bill, but opposed 
woman suffrage, vote'd to delay the state-wide primary and supported 
the motion for final adjournment. 



116 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

N. A. L'Herault, 38th, Minneapolis. — A Dick O'Connor democrat; 
for Farrington; supported the motion which killed the state-wide pri- 
mary; reactionary influence. 

J. W. Pauly, 44th, Minneapolis. — Supported Farrington; opposed 
county option and woman suffrage; was deeply interested in direct leg- 
islation and election reforms. 

Carl L. Wallace, 43rd, Minneapolis. — County optionist and voted 
to seat Froshaug; opposed woman suffrage, state-wide primary on last 
test, and voted for final adjournment with action pending on several 
vital questions. Mr. Wallace was chiefly responsible for the defeat of 
the income tax amendment. 

Geo. P. Wilson, 41st, Minneapolis. — For Froshaug and county option; 
voted for woman suffrage and opposed final adjournment; was against 
the state-wide primary on the crucial roll call. 

* * * 

J. J. Ahmann, 54th, Stearns County. — Democrat; headed the roster 
and could usually be depended upon to start roll calls in the interest* of 
the people; voted for Farrington and against county option; also op- 
posed woman suffrage, but supported election reforms and voted against 
final adjournment. 

B. N. Anderson, 9th, Freeborn County. — One of the most extreme 
reactionaries; voted to seat Farrinsrton; opposed the recall, woman suf- 
frage, and voted for final adjournment; supported the distance tariff. 

S. B. Bedford, 15th, Nobles County. — A quiet, determined, depend- 
able progressive; opposed Farrington; voted for county option, woman 
suffrage; opposed the distance tariff and the Congdon scheme of reap- 
portionment. Mr. Bedford was among the thirty-three who voted against 
final adjournment, but found themselves outweighed by a minority of 
thirty. 

Henry N. Benson, 20th, Nicollet County. — Opposed the seating of 
Farrington; against county option, but was progressive on other issues, 
voting for election reforms and woman suffrage. Mr. Benson opposed 
the Congdon bill and was against final adjournment. 

George C. Carpenter, 46th, Wright County. — Voted to seat Farring- 
ton and oposed county option; was a consistent and extreme reaction- 
ary on other issues, voting against the recall and to delay the passage 
of the state-wide primary on the crucial test: he opposed the distance 
tariff, woman suffrage and voted for final adjournment. 

Thomas E. Cashman, 8th, Steele County. — Insurgent leader; was 
one of the two Democrats to vote against Farrington; supported county 
option, woman suffrage and all election reforms; was against the scheme 
of the politicians to force final adiournment. Senator Cashman intro- 
duced his distance tariff bill for the third time and nearly passed it 
through the Senate after one of the most strenuous legislative battles 
in the history of the state. 

Frank Clague, 19th, Redwood County. — Voted against Farrinsrton, 
but opposed county option and was unprogressive on election reforms, 
voting for the motion which defeated the state-wide nrimary and against 
woman suffrage: voted against the Congdon bill Mr. Clague was one 
of the leaders in the fight against the distance tariff. 

Julius A. Coller, 26th, Scott Countv. — One of the most active for 
Farrington and led in the fight against county option; also onposed 
woman suffrage and voted against the <=tate-wide primary on the last test. 
Mr. Coller was one of those who^ preferred final adjournment to action 
upon the important legislation which was pending. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 117 

C. F. Cook, 6th, Mower County. — Was the only member of the Com- 
mittee on Elections to sign the minority report recommending the seat- 
ing of Farrington; voted for woman suffrage and favored election re- 
forms. Mr. Cook was for the distance tariff and opposed final adjourn- 
ment. 

L. O. Cooke, 3rd, Wabasha County. — One of the six extreme reac- 
tionaries who voted for both Stephens and Farrington; except for a 
vote in favor of the distance tariff Mr. Cooke was unprogressive from 
start to finish, voting against the recall, the state-wide primary, county 
option and woman suffrage; as a climax he voted for final adjournment. 

O. G. Dale, 18th, Lac qui Parle County. — Opposed Farrington and 
voted for county option, woman suffrage, the distance tariff and state- 
wide primary. Mr. Dale was among the thirty-three who voted against 
final adjournment. 

C. R. Donaldson, 24th, McLeod County. — Was an anti-county option 
Democrat and a progressive except in the Farrington case and on the 
question of woman suffrage; voted for the distance tariff, all election 
reforms and against final adjournment. 

S. B. Duea, 16th, Rock County. — Opposed Farrington, but was 
against county option and opposed the state-wide primary on the crucial 
test and also voted against woman suffrage; he opposed the distance 
tariff, the Congdon bill and the last roll call on the question of adjourn- 
ment found him still voting in the negative. 

F. A. Duxbury, 1st, Houston County. — Led in the attempt to post- 
pone the Stephens contest and seemed for Farrington, but voted against 
him; opposed county option, the distance tariff, the Congdon bill and 
the state-wide primary on the motion to concur in the House amend- 
ment; he voted for woman suffrage, but stood with the reactionaries on 
final adjournment. 

S. J. Froshaug, 56th, Swift Count?/. — The only Prohibitionist mem- 
ber of the Senate; was handicapped in his legislative work by having 
to fight the brewery combine for his seat, after being elected; voted for 
county option, woman suffrage, the distance tariff and election reforms. 
Mr. Froshaug is discussed in the chapter on the Farrington-Froshaug 
contest. 

F. L. Glotzbach, 28th, Rice County. — Voted for both Stephens and 
Farrington; opposed county option and woman suffrage, but favored elec- 
tion reforms and the distance tariff; stood with the professional politi- 
cians for final adjournment. 

C. J. Gunderson, 58th, Douglas County. — One of a few members of 
the Committee on Elections who bore the brunt of the battle for the 
integrity of the ballot in the Stephens and Farrington contests; was one 
of the ablest insurgent leaders and fought for moral and fundamental 
reforms throughout the session; supported county option, woman suf- 
frage and the distance tariff; voted against final adjournment. 

D. M. Gunn, 52nd, Itasca County. — Supported Farrington and stood 
for the whole reactionary program, voting against the recall, the Keefe 
bill, the state-wide primary, woman suffrage, the distance tariff, and 
stood for final adjournment. 

A. L. Hanson, 61st, Norman County. — One of the most uncompro- 
mising progressives; voted against Farrington; was for county option, 
woman suffrage, the distance tariff and all election reforms; voted against 
final adjournment. Mr. Hanson went farther than any other Senator in 
voting against graft and extravagance. 

Julius E. Haycraft, 13th, Watonwan County. — Insurgent leader; the 
seating of Froshaug and Saugstad is due largely to his able and con- 



118 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

scientious work as chairman of Committee on Elections; also played a 
conspicuous and patriotic part in the defeat of the Congdon reappor- 
tionment scheme; supported county option, woman suffrage, the distance 
tariff and was especially active in election reforms; opposed final ad- 
journment. 

C. D. Johnson, 48th, Crow Wing County. — Was one of the six who 

dared to vote for both Stenhens and Farrington; supported Dick O'Con- 
nor to succeed Moses E. Clapp; voted twice against state-wide primary; 
opposed county option, but voted for woman suffrage; he stood with 
the thirty who outvoted the thirty-three and forced final adjournment. 

V. L. Johnson, 32nd, Chisago County. — An active, clean, courageous 
progressive; opposed Farrington; was the author of the county option 
bill and supported woman suffrage; voted against the distance tariff 
and final adjournment. 

James Johnston, 53rd, Todd County. — Voted to postpone the Steph- 
ens contest, and to seat Farrington; was against county option, woman 
suffrage and opposed the state-wide primary on the last test. Mr. John- 
ston had small influence, but could usually be depended upon to vote 
for the special interests. He was one of the thirty who wanted to ad- 
journ. 

Charles H. Klein, 25th, Carver County. — Opposed the seating of 
Farrington; was against county option, woman suffrage and the state- 
wide primary on the last test. Mr. Klein opposed the distance tariff 
and voted for final adjournment. 

Olai A. Lende, 17th, Lyon County. — Insurgent leader; opposed Far- 
rington and was in the forefront of the progressive group on all im- 
portant questions; was especially interested in direct legislation, election 
reforms and questions like county option; supported woman suffrage and 
the distance tariff; made one of the most effective speeches against the 
Congdon bill. Mr. Lende is surpassed by few in ability and by none 
in his devotion to public interests. 

M. J. McGrath, 2nd, Winona County. — Except for a vote in favor 
of Farrington his record is progressive; obedient to the wishes of his 
constituents he voted against the distance tariff, but supported woman 
suffrage and was especially active against the Congdon bill and in be- 
half of fundamental reforms like direct legislation, the state-wide primary 
and the Keefe bill. 

Charles S. Marden, 60th, Clay County. — Supported the motion to 
delay the Stephens contest, but voted against Farrington; opposed coun- 
ty option, woman suffrage, the distance tariff and was ready to adjourn. 

John Moonan, 10th, Waseca County. — Voted for Farrington, but 
performed excellent service for the people on other vital questions; was 
especially active in behalf of election reforms, being the author of the 
recall bill and a state-wide primary measure; he fought hard for the 
Keefe bill and opposed the Congdon reapportionment scheme with 
equal vigor; supported woman suffrage and the distance tariff. 

Frank Murray, 22nd, Renville County. — Supported Farrington; op- 
posed county option, woman suffrage and the state-wide primary at 
the crucial time; was the author of a measure providing for the North 
Dakota plan of electing United States Senators which might have de- 
feated the Keefe bill. 

S. A. Nelson, 5th, Fillmore County.— Opposed Farrington; supported 
county option, woman suffrage and the reapportionment bill, but was 
against the state-wide primary on the real test; he voted against final 
adjournment. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 119 

C. W. Odell, 55th, Kandiyohi County. — Opposed Farrington; sup- 
ported county option, woman suffrage and election reforms; opposed the 
distance tariff and final adjournment. 

A. C. Olson, 14th, Jackson County. — Voted to seat Farrington; op- 
posed county option, the distance tariff and the state-wide primary on 
the motion to concur; he wanted to adjourn. 

E. D. Peterson, 23rd, Meeker County. — Insurgent leader; one of the 
two Democrats to vote against Farrington; supported county option, 
woman suffrage, the distance tariff and all election reforms. Mr. Peter- 
son was one of the most consistent and determined progressives. 

A. A. Poehler, 21st, Sibley County. — One of the Stephens-Farrington 
combination; opposed county option, but voted for election reforms and 
the distance tariff; supported the motion to adjourn. 

F. E. Putnam, 12th, Faribault County. — Performed excellent service 
on the Committee on Elections and aided substantially in the seating 
of Froshaug; supported county option, woman suffrage and the distance 
tariff; he opposed the state-wide primary on the last vote; did not want 
to adjourn. 

A. J. Rockne, 29th, Goodhue County. — Opposed Farrington; voted 
for the distance tariff, but opposed woman suffrage, county option and 
the state-wide primary on the test vote; he voted to adjourn. 

Edward Rustad, 57th, Traverse County. — Against Farrington and for 
county option; supported the distance tariff, woman suffrage and the 
Congdon bill; opposed state-wide primary on the last test and voted for 
final adjournment. 

Ole O. Sageng, 59th, Ottertail County. — The only populist Senator; 
one of the ablest insurgents; took a leading part against Farrington and 
Stephens; author of woman suffrage bill; for county option and all funda- 
mental reforms. Mr. Sageng was one of the thirty-three. 

John Saugstad, 62nd, Polk County. — Insurgent leader; had to fight 
the "old guard" for his seat in the senate; against Farrington. Mr. Saug- 
stad was one of the best equipped and most influential progressives. 

Albert Schaller, 30th, Dakota County. — One of the Stephens-Farring- 
ton combination; opposed county option, but supported woman suffrage; 
voted to delay the passage of the state-wide primary, but was against 
final adjournment. 

A. T. Stebbins, 4th, Olmstead County. — A dependable reactionary; 
voted to postpone the Stephens contest and to seat Farrington; opposed 
county option, the distance tariff and the state-wide primary on the mo- 
tion which killed it; was eager to adjourn. 

G. H. Sullivan, 31st, Washington County.— For both Stephens and 
Farrington; voted against county option, woman suffrage, the recall, the 
Keefe bill, state-wide primary and the distance tariff; active in behalf 
of the Congdon bill; was regarded as the reactionary floor leader. 

J. D. Sullivan, 47th, Stearns County. — Favored Farrington; opposed 
county option, woman suffrage, and the distance tariff; voted for the 
Congdon bill and final adjournment. 

B. E. Sundberg, 63rd, Kittson County.— One of the most consistent 
and conscientious insurgents; opposed Farrington; for county option, 
woman suffrage and all fundamental reforms. The state never had a 
more patriotic legislator. 

C. J. Swanson, 45th, Anoka County.— Opposed Farrington, county 
option, woman suffrage, the distance tariff, and the state-wide primary 
when that measure was defeated; was willing to adjourn. 



120 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

F. J. Thoe, 7th, Dodge County. — Insurgent; opposed Farrington; for 
county option, woman suffrage and election reforms; was against final 

adjournment. 

Harry F. Weis, 27th, Le Sueur County. — For Farrington; against 
county option and woman suffrage; was for the distance tariff and elec- 
tion reforms; stood with the reactionaries for adjournment. 

S. D. Works, 11th, Blue Earth County.— A leader of the Stephens- 
Farrington combination and voted for both; opposed county option and 
woman suffrage; has a bad reactionary record except on election issues 
and the distance tariff. 



CHAPTER XIX. 
A FINAL WORD. 

This little volume may seem to be a pessimistic portrayal of legisla- 
tive conditions. Perhaps it is. I have deliberately aimed to suggest the 
unwholesome phases of the session — the things about which the people 
should have information. There were many beneficent influences and 
results. Those have not been emphasized because they are normal. The 
public has a right to expect that legislators shall labor for the general 
good. It is only when they take the opposite course, and serve the pur- 
poses of special privilege and political plunder, that the voters should 
know in order that there may be reproof and change. 

Mr. Klemer and Dr. Stone were worth their weight in gold. It re- 
quired just such a performance as their clash with the reactionary or- 
ganization to arouse the electorate to a realization of the corrupt con- 
ditions. And the heroic efforts of those two were seconded, although 
in not the same sensational way, by the almost daily samples of plain 
talk from men like J. N. Johnson, W. I. Nolan, Clinton Robinson, and 
Ole Sageng. 

The big problem is to get the facts before the people. The press 
has the power to completely change conditions in a year. Such feeble 
efforts at enlightenment as this would be wholly unnecessary if some 
of the newspapers would do their duty. 

The public should insist upon a few fundamental reforms within the 
legislature: 

First — A constitutional amendment limiting the time for the intro- 
duction of bills to the first thirty days of the session. 

Second — Standing committees should not be permitted to keep busi- 
ness away from the House and Senate for more than fifteen days. This 
rule should be free from jokers. 

Third — The number of standing committees should be reduced to 
not more than twenty. Then "packing" would be impossible. 

Fourth — The "Third House" should be reduced about two-thirds, to 
a basis of utility. 

Fifth — Supplies, except printing, should be eliminated entirely. If 
certain purchases are necessary, each member should be given $10 for 
incidentals. 

Either the Senate or the House might well be abolished. In all my 
observations, extending through several sessions, I have never seen the 
least excuse or need for the two bodies. On the other hand, the exist- 
ence of an upper and lower branch makes possible the "team work" 
which has been used so often and so effectively against the people. I 
would do away with the Senate. There is already too much "check" in 
the chief executive and the courts. 

It is always darkest just before the dawn. Politically, conditions 
must be bad before they can be better. Viewed in the light of its neglected 
opportunities to enact in the interest of the people, the last legislature 
was the worst in the history of the state. No previous session ever had 
to defeat so many vital reforms, which is in itself the surest sign of pro- 
gress. The special interests and political plunderers had to fight as never 
before. They were forced into the last ditch on every issue. Had the 
insurgents captured the organization of the House and had there been a 
Klemer in the Senate, almost the whole progressive program would have 
been enacted. 



122 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

CONTENTS. 

The Districts and Who Represent Them 3 

The Automobile in Politics 5 

Definitions and Introductions 6 

About the Plunderbund 10 

Fundamental Legislative Laws 23 

How the House Was Organized 27 

Making and Manipulating the Machine 31 

Klemeritis and Stone Bruises 37 

The Speakership Contest 42 

Gordon and the Old Guard 48 

The Fight for Direct Legislation 49 

Election Measures 56 

Liquor Legislation 60 

Defeating the Distance Tariff 67 

The Congdon Scheme of Reapportionment 70 

Duluth and the Tonnage Tax 80 

The Farrington-Froshaug Contest 83 

Labor and the Legislature 92 

Woman Suffrage 96 

"Hold-up" Legislation 97 

A Characterization of Members 99 

A Final Word 121 

TOPICAL INDEX. 

Alumni Coaches 7, 43 

Blackmail 35 

Brewery Banquets 34 

Brewery Combine 6, 23, 37, 50, 51, 52, 70, 71, 96 

Bribery '. 35 

Chief Clerk of the House 10 to 19 

Child Labor Law 94 

Child. S. R 45 

Civil Service 7 

Clock Incident 66 

"Corporation Cabinet" ■ 31 

Corrupt Practices Act 7, 57, 58 

County Option 43, 45, 47, 60, 61, 71, 72, 73, 74, 100 

Detroit Fish Hatchery 32, 33 

Employers' Liability Act 7, 93 

Final Adjournment of Senate 54, 55 

Firemen's Bill 94, 95 

Fountain Pens 11 

Governor Eberhart 7, 81, 95 

Income Tax 7, 57 

Initiative and Referendum 7, 49 to 54, 92, 96, 99 

Insurgents 9, 35, 36, 57, 81, 90 

Keefe Bill 56. 57. 58, 99, 100 

Klemer Incident ^ s 27, 37 to 42, 99 

Legislative Districts 3, 4 

Local Option for 4th Class Cities 64, 65, 66, 100 

Minnesota Citizen's League 7 

Nolan Amendment 24, 99 

Office Furniture 13 

Organized Labor 52, 53, 92 to 96 

Party Records 100 

"Packed" Committees 26, 27 to 31, 38, 80, 81 

Professional Politicians 7, 45, 59, 90, 97, 98 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 123 

Pocket Knives • • J* 

Railroad and Warehouse Commission -8, 68 

Reactionaries 7, 27, 39, 53, 55 

Rice Amendment 63, 100 

Road House Bill 62, 63, 100 

Robinson Brewery Bill 63, 64, 100 

Robinson Resolution 31 

Scratch Pads • • • • « j~ 

Secretary of State in on 

Secretary of the Senate 10 to 20 

Seven-Senator Bill 78, 79 

Shears and Scissors ■ • • • • 12 

Special Interests 6, 23, 27 

State Departments • • • • • • • • • 7 

State-wide Primary 7, 42, 58, 59 

State-wide Prohibition 61, 62 

Stationery • • • • • • • • *2 

Steel Trust 6, 45, 70, 71 

Saturday Lunch Club ■ ■ • 45 

Ste^hens-Saugstad Contest • 89, 90 

Stockwell, S. A V^-Vo ,f 

SuVmd Bill 7, 37. 38, 100 

Supplier 10 to 20 

"Team Work" 56, 57,58,99, 100 

"The Protest" ....' • 66 

The Recall 7, 49 to 56 

Theater Tickets 34. 35. 97 

Third House • }9 to 23 

Time Limit Rule . . ; 24, 25, 55 

Tri-Countv Delegation 101 

Two-Thirds Resolution • • 99 

Woman Suffrage 7, 96 

REFERENCES TO REPRESENTATIVES. 

Aker, Knute S.— Referred to on pages 24, 31. 33, 37. 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 

53, 54, 58, 61, 62. 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 81. 93, 94, 107. 

Anderson, Andrew— 24, 31, 37. 39. 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69, 72, 78, 81. 93, 94, 107. H „ „ 

Anderson, A. V.— 24, 26, 29, 31. 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 69, 73, 78, 81, 93. 94, 107. • n _ 

Anderson, J. J.-24, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36. 37, 39, 40, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62, 63, 64. 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 107. 
Boothrovd. Frank— 24, 31. 33. 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69,73, 78, 81, 93,94, 107. _ , A 

Borden, Anton— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65,69,72,78.80.81,93,94.101. ro 

Bouck, C W.— 21. 24, 30. 31, 33, 34. 37. 39. 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62, 63, 64, 65. 69. 72, 78. 80, 81, 93, 94, 97, 107. 

Brown, G. W.— 24. 31. 37, 39. 40, 46. 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

69, 72, 78, 80. 81. 93. 94. 107. „*.*»„** 

Brown, L. D.-24. 27, 28. 31, 33, 37. 39. 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80. 81, 93. 94, 108. 

Burnquist, J. A. A.-24, 25, 27. 29, 30, 31, 33, 34. 36, 39. 40, 43. 44. 45, 46, 

47, 49, 51, 52, 53. 54, 58. 61. 62. 63. 64, 65. 69, 73, 78, 80, 81. 94, 103. 
Camobell, W. A.— 18, 21. 24, 26, 29, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 

54. 58. 61. 62. 63, 64, 65, 69. 72, 78. 80, 81. 93. 94, 104. 

Christie, F. C. J.— 24, 33. 37. 39. 40, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 64, 
65, 69, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 108. 



124 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

Clarke, R. J.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 40, 49, 51, 52. 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69 f 

72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 103. 
Congdon, C. A.— 23, 24, 27, 30, 37. 40, 46, 49, 54, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 

70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 94, 98. 101. 
Conley, K. E.— 13, 18, 19, 24, 29, 30, 31, 33. 34, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 

54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 78, 80, 81, 93. 94, 108. 
Converse. P. S.— 21, 24, 32, 33, 37, 40, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 69, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 108. 

Crane, Ralph E.— 21, 24, 29, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49. 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 60, 

61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 73, 78, 80, 81. 93, 94, 108. 

Davies, Joseph— 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51. 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 

64, 65, 69, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 108. 

Davis. Andrew— 21, 24, 26, 29, 33, 36, 37, 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62, 63, 64, 65, 72, 78, 80, 81, 108. 

Denzer, G. H.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 47. 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65,69,73, 78,80,81, 94,98, 109. 
Diessner. H. R — 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 78, 

80, 81, 93, 94, 109. 
Dunn, H. H.— 9, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40. 42, 43, 44, 

45, 46, 47, 49, 51. 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 72, 78, 

80, 81, 93, 94, 99, 109. 

Dunn, R. C.—S, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38. 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 

58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 69, 72, 78, 80. 81, 93, 94, 109. 
Edwards, Moyle— 18, 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51. 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 66, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 97, 109. 

Farley, F. L.— 24, 29, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51. 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69, 73, 78, 81, 93, 109. 

Ferguson, T. M.— 21, 24, 31, 37. 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 

64, 65, 66, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 109. 
Fisher, W. A.— 24, 29, 36, 46, 10. 

Fowler. C. R.— 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 37, 39, 40, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62, 63, 64, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 97, 104. 

Frankson, Thomas— 21, 24, 29, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 

61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 109. 
Fuchs, E. J.— 24, 33, 37, 39, 40, 44, 49, 51, 52, 53. 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 103. 
Greene, T. J.— 18, 24, 33. 37, 39, 40, 44, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 103. 

Hafften, August— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49. 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 

64, 65, 69, 73, 78, 80, 81, 94, 110. 
Harding, W. A.— 24, 29, 31. 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62^ 

63, 64, 65, 69, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 110. 

Hauge, O.— 24, 39, 46, 49, 51. 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 

81, 93, 94, 98, 110. 

Healy, John A.— 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62. 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 

80. 81. 94, 102. 
Henion, Alva— 21, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37. 39, 44, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 

64, 69, 72, 78, 81, 93, 110. 

Herzberg, C. F.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49. 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69, 73, 78, 80,81, 93, 110. 

Hillman, N. S.— 24, 29, 31, 33, 36. 37, 39, 40, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 63, 

64, 65, 72, 78, 80, 81, 100, 102. 
Hoffman, Henry A.— 24, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49. 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 

64, 65, 78,80, 81, 93, 110. 
Holmberg, N. J.— 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36. 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 

61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 110. 
Holten, John— 24, 29, 32. 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 110. 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 125 

Hopkins, Frank.— 21, 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 98. 111. 
Hurley, J. J.— 24, 31. 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 49, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

72 78 80 81 103 
Jelinek John P.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 62. 63, 64, 65, 

72, 78, 80, 81, 103. 

Johnson, C. E.— 24, 29. 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 

61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 111. 
Johnson, J N.— 14, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31. 33, 36. 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 

54, 58, 61. 62, 63, 64, 65, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 111. 
Johnson, J. Tf— 11, 12, 19, 24, 29, 30, 31. 36, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 49, 51, 52, 

53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 94, 111. 

Just, W. A.— 21, 26. 31, 33. 37. 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 60, 61, 62,.63, 64, 

65, 69, 72,78, 80,81, 93,94, 111. 
Keefe, Joseph R.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40. 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 111. 
Kelly, Frank L.— 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

69. 72, 78,80, 81,94, 111. 
Klemer, F. L.— 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39. 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 

58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 73, 78. 80. 81, 93, 94, 99, 111. 
Knapp, C. T.— 18, 24, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52. 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65. 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 102. 
Kneeland, Thomas— 24, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54. 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65. 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 105. 

Knutson, Knute— 24, 31, 34, 37, 40, 46, 48. 49, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 112. 
Kunze, W. F— 11, 18. 21, 24. 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 

61, 62, 63. 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93. 94. 105. 

Lee, I. J.— 24, 29, 30. 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62, 63, 64, 65. 69. 73, 78, 80. 81, 93, 94, 112. 

Lee, J. F.— 24, 26, 29, 31, 33. 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 58, 61, 62, 63, 

64, 65, 69, 73, 78, 80, 81. 93, 94, 112. 

Lee, S. N.— 24, 31. 33, 37, 39. 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 112. 

Lennon, John G.— 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40. 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 63, 

64, 65, 69, 72, 78, SO, 81, 105. 

Libera, Albert P.— 24, 31, 33, 37. 39, 40, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69, 73, 78, 93, 94, 112. 

LindberR, R. J.-24, 29, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 51, 52. 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65,69,72, 78, 80, 81, 93. 94. 112. 
Lundeen, Ernest— 24, 26. 29. 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54. 58, 

61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 105. 
Lydiard. L. A.— 24, 31. 33, 37. 39, 40. 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 105. 
McDonald, H. W.— 24, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52. 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 103. 
MacKenzie, Geo. A.— 20, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39. 40, 46, 49, 51. 52, 53, 

54. 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 112. 

McMartin. Finlay— 24, 29, 30, 31, 33. 36, 37. 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54. 58, 

61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 112. 

McNeil. Alex.— 31. 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 106. 
Mattson, G. H.— 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 46, 51, 52. 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62. 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80. 81, 93, 94, 112. 

Mettlimr, P. J.— 24, 31, 33. 37. 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58. 61, 62, 63. 64. 65, 

69, 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 112. 
Minette. Frank E.— 24, 31. 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93. 94, 112. 



126 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

Moriarity, J. J.— 24, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62. 63, 64, 69, 72, 

78,80,81,93, 94, 112. 
Morton, Rufus P.— 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37. 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 112. 
Nash, John P.— 30, 40, 46. 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 78, 80, 81, 

106. 
Nelson, Alex.— 24, 31, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64. 65, 

69, 72, 78. 80, 81, 93, 94, 112. 
Nelson, H.— 24, 31, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65. 69, 

72, 78. 80, 81,93,94, 112. 
Nolan, W. I.— 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 46, 49; 51, 52, 53, 54, 

58. 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 106. 
Nye, George M.— 18, 24, 30, 31, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65. 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 106. 

Nygren, Carl S.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65.69,72, 78,80,81,93,94, 112. 
O'Brien, John D.— 24, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

72, 78, 80. 81, 93, 94, 103. 
O'Neill, D. P.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 112. 
Orr, Charles N.— 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 

61. 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 103. 

Palmer, F. L.— 24, 29, 31, 33, 36,-37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, S3, 54, 58, 60, 61, 

62. 63. 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 106. 

Papke, John W.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 

64, 65. 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 113. 

Perry, E.G.— 18, 24, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63. 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 104. 

Peters, Joseph— 24, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

72,78. 80, 81, 93,94, 113. 
Peterson, A. J.— 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62. 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 113. 
Peterson, J. E.— 18, 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62, 63. 64, 65, 69. 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 113. 

Peterson, Ole— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 113. 
Pfaender, Albert— 24, 27, 28, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, S3, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 101, 113. 

Putnam, H. A.— 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58. 

61, 62, 63, 64. 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 113. 

Reed, Geo. D.— 24, 30, 31, 37,46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

72,78,80. 81,93,94, 113. 
Ribenack, E. R.— 31. 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

72. 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 102. 
Rice, L. H.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

72. 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 100, 113. 
Rines, Henry— 29, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69. 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 113. 

Robertson, Donald— 24, 33, 37, 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69, 72. 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Robinson, Clint— 14, 18, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 

54. 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 100, 101. 
Rustad, John O.— 18, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 53, 54, 

58, 61, 62. 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Saggau, H. A.— 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

72, 78, 80. 81, 93, 94. 
Sampson, John A.— 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 



1 



THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 127 

Schuler, C. P.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

69, 72. 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Schwartz, Martin— 24, 29, 33, 36, 37, 39, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69. 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 100, 101. 
Skartum, K. G.— 24, 29, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 

64.65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Spooner, L. C.— 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 

61, 62. 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 84, 93, 94. 

Stone, C. E.— 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62. 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 93, 94, 104. 

Stone. W. T.— 19, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 

62, 63. 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 

Sulerud, C. L.— 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63. 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 100. 

Sullivan, M. J.— 24, 31, 33, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 

72, 78. 80, 81, 93, 94, 106. 
Thielan, P. C.— 24, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

69. 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 106. 
Untiedt, Henry— 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

69, 72, 78. 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Utecht, Aug. M.— 24, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

69. 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Virtue, Leonard— 24, 27, 28, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65. 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 

Voxland, Geo. H.— 24, 29, 33, 36, 37, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65. 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Warner, C. H.— 24, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69. 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 1C6. 
Warner, E.— 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 

64, 65, 69. 73, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 

Washburn, W. D., Jr.— 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 

63. 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Webb, Henry P.-^24, 29. 31, 36, 37, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 60, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65. 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Westcott. W. H.— 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 

58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
White, Harrison— 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 60, 

61. 62. 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 
Whiting, E. F.— 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 39, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 

65, 69. 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94. 

Wisniewiski, L.— 20, 21, 24, 31, 33, 37. 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 
63, 64. 65, 69, 72, 78, 80, 81, 93, 94, 101. 

REFERENCES TO SENATORS. 

Ahmann, J. J.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Anderson, B. N— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Bedford. S. B.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 73, 78, 90, 96. 

Benson, H. N.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Boyle, James P.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61; 69, 78, 81, 83, 90. 96. 

Carpenter, Geo. C.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Cashman. Thos. E.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 68, 69, 73, 78, 83, 90, 96. 

Cheadle, H. W.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 81, 90, 96. 

Clague, Frank— 53, 55. 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Colier. Julius A.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Cook, C. F.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 83. 88. 90, 96. 

Cooke, L. O.— 21. 55, 57. 59. 61, 69. 78, 90. 96. 

Dale, O. G.-53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 83, 90, 96. 



JUN 24 19M 

128 THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE OF 1911 

Denegre, James D.— 21. 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96, 

Donaldson, C. R.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Duea, S. B.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Dunn, W. W.— 53. 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Duxbury, F. A.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Dwinnell, W. S.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Elwell. James T.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Fosseen, M. L.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Froshaug, S. J.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 83 to 91, 90, 96. 

Glotzbach. F. L.— 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Gunderson, C. J.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 69, 78, 83, 85, 90, 96. 

Gunn, D. M.— 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90. 96. 

Hackney, J. M.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 83, 90, 96. 

Handlan, James— 55, 57. 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Hanson, A. L.— 21, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Haycraft, Julius E.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 83, 85, 90, 96. 

Johnson, C. D.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Johnson, V. L.— 53, 55, 57. 59, 60, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Johnston, James— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Klein, Chas. H.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78. 90, 96. 

Lende, Olai A.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 70, 75, 78, 90, 96. 

L'Herault, N. A.— 53. 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

McGrath, M. J.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Harden, Chas. S.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Moonan. John— 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 69, 73, 78, 90, 96. 

Murray, Frank— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Nelson, S. A.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69. 78, 90, 96. 

Odell, C. W.— 53, 55, 57, 59. 60, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Olson, A C.— 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Pauly, John W.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96, 

Peterson, E. D.— 53, 55, 57. 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Poehler, A. A.— 53. 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Pugh, T. M.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 69, 78, 90. 96. 

Putnam, F. E.— 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 83, 90, 96. 

Rockne, A. J.— 53. 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Rustad, Edward— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Sageng, Ole O.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Saugstad. John— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 89, 90, 96. 

Schaller, Albert— 53, 55. 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Stebbins, A. T.— 55, 50, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Sullivan, G. H.— 53, 54. 55, 57, 59, 61, 69. 78, 90, 96. 

Sullivan, J. D.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Sundberg, B. E.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Swanson, C. J.— 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Thoe, F. J.— 53, 55, 57. 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Van Hoven, Peter— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Wallace, Carl L — 53 55. 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 83. 90, 96. 

Weis, Harry F.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Wilson, Geo. P.— 53, 55, 57. 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 

Works, S. D.— 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 69, 78, 90, 96. 



H ■ 



*hth: 



&8 H i^H 



WW IE 

H JwSHH 

W 'Iff «4flt^Mk«i 



jSft&rai 


1 . .•->> 


rP^i 


(JjfKW 


kyTBR'T 


Wm 




wml 


^H i 






3| , , 




■■.-.',':. 



COUNTY BALLOT 



i I opposite the name oi each candidate 
in the squares indicated by the arrow, 



I 







: GAUTifE i 


;. QVALE 


Republican 


; 


e of 


District Cpurt- 


\ I V \ R I 


d;nt, fiui 


e pendent 





Member of -Congress -ANDREW J, VOLSTEAD, Republican] 
Member of Congrt - 



or— THOMAS J. McELUGOTT, Republican 
State Senator— RAY G. EAKJRLNGTON, Democrat 



s. I, FROSHAITG, Prohibition 



state Senator 



— KNUTK KNUTSON, Republican 
^isl-iture j"~~ HOMER S1GLER, Dctnocrat 

sentative to Legislature— 

Vudilor— D. P.CARNEY, Democrat 
County Auditor—- 



t W VHn m vtM. m ■ .'* '" 



County Treasurer— CHAS. E. WELSH, Republican 
Connie Treasurer— I, B, ANDERSON, Democrat 
County Treasurer— 



{"Deeds-!!. C. ODNEY, Republican 
Register of Deeds 



Sheriff-O. P.JOHNSON, Republican 



a 
o 
y 

&• 
9 
« 
M 
a» 
O 
u 

u, 

I 

a 

o 

60 

a 
s 

u 
a 
U. 

a 
o 

w 


» 

u 

.s 

-o 

O 

"3. 
Id 



OQ 



o 

M 



-a 
a 

e» 

o 

44 

o 

J3 
0* 



Sheri rtf— i P V A M SI V k* 



MMMMMMMMJiqyMMM MMMi 



jnbgeof Probate— J, N. EDWARDS, Republican 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 272 428 3 



